
The ‘Real You’ Is a Myth - prostoalex
https://theconversation.com/the-real-you-is-a-myth-we-constantly-create-false-memories-to-achieve-the-identity-we-want-103253
======
hrnnnnnn
This sounds like the idea of "no-self" from Buddhism.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta)

~~~
helloindia
As someone who is studying at the moment, I thought the same.

------
Fri21Sep
I disagree. I've been keeping a journal for more than 10 years (started when I
was 14 and am 25 now), where I report important events and more importantly
reflect on them, and also on general concepts. Reading old entries can be very
enlightening.

What comes out of it is that events are the "data", while personality/identity
is the "software". The data is various, but the software is the same. The
consistency of reasoning between now and then is incredible. When I read the
setup of an old recounting, I start reacting to it while reading it from the
point of view of my now-self, and then I see that the reflection of my old-
self on this event to be very consistent with that. It's naive, uninformed and
a bit rebellious (probably because of teenagehood), and sometimes because of
that it completely misses the point, but the direction of reflection is the
same. It's not alien, it makes sense.

We're reacting to events by using our software on related data. The value of
experience entirely lies in the data, which can sometimes create entire shifts
in perspective, but the software is the same. If you read an old journal
you'll see that most reactions are the same, and for those which differ you
can point out exactly what piece of data was missing in comparison to today's
perspective.

~~~
scarecrowbob
I wonder if you'll change your view on this as you age.

I'm 40. I've been through 2 divorces and 3 full-on professional careers
(academics, music, and programming). I have a 17-year-old son.

Although I can probably think out the evolution of my "software", it's really
hard to think of my current releases as having a whole lot of backwards
compatibility with that 0.0.1 version. If I had to give it a number, I'd say
I'm somewhere around release 6.4.3.

:D

Personally (and this is just my conclusions, not one I expect other folks to
come to), my views and strategies for working with the world are so removed
from 25-year-old me that I have little problem saying that I am almost not the
same person.

Certainly, my "software" has so many revisions to essential functionality that
it's hardly recognizable as the same collection of code: there is very little
overlap between how I reasoned about things when I was 25 and now, and I feel
like that's not just a matter of "data" aggregation. My conclusions is that
the software isn't, in fact, the same.

I feel like it's more that I've fundamentally revised the software on a number
of levels to the point where there are so many essential differences the
identity isn't even consistent.

~~~
Phenomenit
I agree but for me the business logic is the same. It's trying to solve the
same problems. I want the same things I always wanted and I'm not talking
about money or material or social status and relationships. I still want the
same specific skills and experiences that did I when I was a kid but outlook
is totally different.

------
RikNieu
Real me. Right. Which one is that? 2 Year old me? 10 Year old me? Current age
me? Me yesterday? Me today? The me I experience phenomenologically or the me
other people perceive, interpret and interact with? The different me's others
perceive individually?

Will the real me please stand up.

~~~
madacoo
Would it be reasonable to define the real me as simply the perpetually
mutating sum of all those things?

~~~
RikNieu
I dunno, would it be reasonable to call a cloud that temporarily looks like
Chewbacca Chewbacca?

I suppose it would make sense in that particular moment in time, and in that
particular context, but it's not an image of Chewbacca is it? Not really. It's
just a conveniet way of refering to phenomena... happening and being perceived
a certain way.

In a similar way, I'd say yes, we are the "real us" at any point in time, but
only in the sense that it makes convient sense in that particular moment, and
only as a device to point at a set of particular processes/things happening.

------
stewbrew
"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
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
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
>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.

------
senectus1
I'm fairly self conscious of the fact that I am at least 3 or 4 different
people.

My "work" personality is a completely different one to my "Home" personality.

and My Online and internal personalities are all different people as well.

which one is the real me? _shrug_ they're all real, just used for different
purposes. I'm fairly sure I'm not unique in this, but then I suspect I'm
better at compartmentalising than most others so maybe I am.

~~~
com2kid
I've known people who, at the office, are devoid of logic and are unable to
think through complex topics. They operate in a permanent state of lizard
brain, reacting with panic to everything that comes their way.

Perfectly normal and decent folk outside of work. Able to hold intelligent and
thought provoking conversation, and talk intelligently about many fields.

The lesson? Some people are so good at compartmentalizing that they leave
their intelligence in another box.

~~~
pjc50
That sounds more into the range of a severe anxiety disorder, "dissociation"
rather than compartmentalisation.

------
chrisco255
Be wary of your own self-delusions. Sometimes they might be useful. Other
times, they might be detrimental.

~~~
imesh
But what if it's your self-delusion making you think your non-delusion is a
delusion?

~~~
shoo
in that case, remain wary

------
thunderbong
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself

Sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

\- Dave Matthews Band - So much to say

------
vbuwivbiu
not only that, but all perception is a constructive process based on
predictions according to multiple competing models which run in parallel of
which we are only aware of a few at most. As such, other people have no single
or objective perception of us either.

------
p2detar
_But what is selected as a personal memory also needs to fit the current idea
that we have of ourselves. Let’s suppose you have always been a very kind
person, but after a very distressing experience you have developed a strong
aggressive trait that now suits you. Not only has your behaviour changed, your
personal narrative has too. If you are now asked to describe yourself, you
might include past events previously omitted from your narrative – for
example, instances in which you acted aggressively._

I have been pondering on a similar question for some time now. I have an
amateurish and somewhat _Jungian_ theory:

I think the "real me" is a collection of archetypes that are constantly
struggling to take control over the mind and body. These archetypes are also
constantly being improved on or new ones are being acquired through life time
experiences. The "I" or the consciousness is nothing more than an observer and
it also has the role to create a reasonable explanation, a justification if
you will, of the motives behind actions. But the motives of the "I" are
entirely produced by its collection of archetypes. This, in reality, would
mean that the consciousness mind has no real choice in what one does! It is
the archetypes that drive us to do or say things and the conscious mind just
observes and creates a reason out of our memories and knowledge.

This would explain situations where, for example, one gets angry and says
something that offends and hurts another person, but they would then almost
immediately ask themselves "Why the heck did I even say/do that?" and the
conscious mind creates a justification. After that another archetype prevails,
e.g.; the one of compassion, and an apology would follow.

Of course, none of this explains how archetypes came to be in the first place.

~~~
snikeris
This is similar to what is presented in Minsky's Society of Mind. What you're
calling archetypes, he calls agents.

Question for you...I agree with your observer idea. But why have an observer?
What purpose does it serve? Couldn't we make do as just a collection of
agents?

~~~
p2detar
An observer could be required because of the causality nature of our reality.
I would assume the observer is an _agent_ that connects cause and effect. It
could be the one thing that brings order out of chaos in reality, if by chaos
we mean the collection of agents.

I want to thank you about mentioning "Minsky's Society of Mind". On my reading
list.

------
qwerty456127
The good news is "real you" probably are not your memories - these are _yours_
, not _you_. The bad news is you are probably going to forget this and have a
hard time getting the clue if you lose your memory. But perhaps it may be
right the opposite - maybe one with all their memory lost may automatically
get "face to face" with their "real self" actually. I would love to test that
given a guarantee that all my memories are going to return soon. I've heard
some psychedelics can induce this experience (and the memories are supposed to
return as it wears off) called "ego death" if taken in sufficiently high
doses. Perhaps I have even had such an experience but I'm not sure if it was
that: I've once smoked some strong weed after drinking too much booze and
forgotten everything (for about half an hour) - the feeling (but no
information) of self-identity remained perfectly intact but I was afraid to
leave the bar as I had no idea of where do I live and how do I get there.

------
yboris
A related book: "Strangers to Ourselves" by Timothy D. Wilson
[http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013827](http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013827)
Excellent book with excellent advice about how to proceed.

------
throwayw32
This has been dealt to death in Dharmic philosophies; I'm surprised there is
zero attribution to this anywhere in this article. This is not the first such
instance though; I have to wonder why standard academic ethics is not followed
with anything concerning Indic traditions.

~~~
bitexploder
I often find modern psychology heavily resembles ancient life philosophies.
For example, CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) is, effectively, applied
Stoicism. If you were to explain CBT to an ancient stoic they would just nod
and agree, understanding the approach intimately.

------
etiam
_Mazzoni G, Scoboria A, Harvey L. (2010) Nonbelieved memories.

Abstract: This is the first empirical study of vivid autobiographical memories
for events that people no longer believe happened to them. Until now, this
phenomenon has been the object of relatively rare, albeit intriguing,
anecdotes, such as Jean Piaget's description of his vivid memory of an
attempted abduction that never happened. The results of our study show that
nonbelieved memories are much more common than is expected. Approximately 20%
of our initial sample reported having at least one nonbelieved
autobiographical memory. Participants' ratings indicate that nonbelieved
memories share most recollective qualities of believed memories, but are
characterized by more negative emotions. The results have important
implications for the way autobiographical memory is conceptualized and for the
false-memory debate._

"Approximately 20% of our initial sample reported having at least one
nonbelieved autobiographical memory." and an anecdote of Piaget vividly
remembering something wrong after being consistently misled by his mother as a
child.

Some discrepancy between that and "we constantly create false memories to
achieve the identity we want".

If _my_ memory serves right it's well established in laboratory conditions
that autobiographical memory is vulnerable to adversarial manipulation, but
last thing I heard it wasn't at all clear that it spontaneously malfunctions
under normal living conditions. I see very little in this piece that gives me
reason to revise that impression.

~~~
boomboomsubban
That's the research showing that memories shape personality. The research
about about autobiographical memory is further down the page.

------
emodendroket
Wow, the claim of the headline does not follow from what the article explains
at all. OK, people craft a narrative that fits their self-conception and use
memories selectively to that end, some of which are not even real. How does
"the 'real you' is a myth" follow from that at all?

------
rusk
Since having a child, and seeing my friends and sibs having children I have
come to the conclusion that there is a large degree of our personalities are
"hard-wired". It's amazing how each child comes out differently with their own
personality right off the blocks. You typically see invariant characteristics
persist through life. To me this is "the real you", the aspects of your
personality that are with you throughout your life.

If I had to put a figure on it, to avoid argument I'd say it accounts for
between 30 and 50% of your behaviour. The rest is shaped by social
conditioning, life experiences and the environment we find ourselves living
in. But even these could be said to be mediated in some part by the initial
30%.

~~~
hrnnnnnn
I read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature a while ago and your
numbers are pretty close to what Pinker says.

About 50% of personality from genetics, 50% from environment, and
approximately 0% from parental influence.

~~~
tomp
> 50% of personality from genetics

What's the source of this? Given that siblings are often so different between
each other, and from their parents, it could be that _most_ of personality
traits come from the environment, but we're still _born with it_ (i.e. it
could be influence in early development of the fetus, from the environment
(womb, food mother eats and her hormones, sounds and movement from outside,
...) not from genes).

~~~
naasking
> Given that siblings are often so different between each other

But most _identical twins_ are not so different from each other. Read up on
twin studies, where twins were separated at birth. They tend to have very
similar personalities and outlooks on life, despite never having had contact
until the study was conducted.

~~~
tomp
That still wouldn't separate genetics vs. common pre-birth environmental
influences (e.g. mother's hormones and nutrition).

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
There's not much known because it's almost impossible to research, surely?
You'd have to have one identical twin developing naturally, and the other
brought to term inside a surrogate mother.

This probably doesn't happen very often. (TBH I don't know if it's even
possible.)

------
Orlan
If anyone caught Derek Delgaudio's Off-Broadway show "In and Of Itself", he
dealt with this concept. Great show, limited run just ended recently.

------
messit
The 'Real You' is not a myth, and it is not based on thoughts. It is what you
truly are, and what is lost when you die.

~~~
kaolti
How can you actually know what is lost when you die?

~~~
rusk
who said it's about knowing

~~~
kaolti
It was implied in the comment I was replying to.

~~~
rusk
_> The 'Real You' is not a myth, and it is not based on thoughts. It is what
you truly are, and what is lost when you die._

I don't think it was ... if anything _" it is not based on thoughts"_ would
imply the opposite!

An object "is" an object whether it knows it is or not.

EDIT I think maybe you're interpreting the final clause of the sentence _"
what is lost when you die"_ as "what is lost to _you_ " but I read it as "what
is lost _to others_ ".

------
Muha_
"I" is most valuable thing I have and only thing undoubtedly existing. And
this thing not exists at all if I believe thats the world exists independently
of me. This is not about natural sciences, it's a philosophical paradox that
will never be solved.

------
evook
Cogito ergo est.

~~~
emodendroket
"I think therefore it is"?

