The Worst You = The Real You?

[Xyk]

This doesn't go against my statement. Put your Ti to work!

Yes it does. I double checked to be sure. There is a difference between "somewhere in the middle of the spectrum" and "all of the spectrum". It's not as pronounced a difference as good vs bad, but it is definitely a difference.

 

[Lily flower]

I can see that our worse or stressed selves bring out our true personality. I have become really extroverted in the last 5 years or so, but when something bad happens to me I clam up and want to be at home all by myself, revealing my true Introvert nature.

 

[Viridian]

Yes, that's something I believe. I think people who cannot accept their own worst self or their own flaws tend to be more judgmental of the weaknesses of others, and it stresses them out to show weakness.

What do you mean by "'accept' their own worst self"? You mean, like, admitting you have personal demons? Or being able to express negative emotions in a frank manner?

 

[Fluffywolf]

I disagree. The real you is who you are at the present moment. The worst you is what you've been in the past, what you can (or already have) overcome.

 

[Jaguar]

I disagree. The real you is who you are at the present moment. The worst you is what you've been in the past, what you can (or already have) overcome.

How dare you have those thoughts.
We're all losers on the verge of being dragged down into the quicksand of neurosis!

 

[Totenkindly]

I guess it's fun to explore various ways to look at the self, but only as far as they are helpful. One framework in itself doesn't need to be "definitive."

I tend to be more pragmatic, the older I get. I tend to view my "real self" as the person I am in the world, warts and all; my "ideal self" is the person I aspire to be. It's less about personality and more about my choices and behavior.

 

[cascadeco]

The 'worst me' is a part of me. All of it is ME. I don't think anyone stays so 'baseline' that they're the same day in and day out, or from one period of life to the other. We all may need to adjust or will have certain sides of our personality come to the forefront in a given situation or life 'phase', and in another phase/situation will have another side of ourselves come to the forefront.

I'm a believer that we each have core, elemental aspects to who we are, but that those expand outwards to varying behaviors, and also additional layers of processing, and also new perceptions or choices made over time as we gain more life experience.

The Worst Me is no more the 'Real Me' than the Best Me. They're all just extensions/'modes' of the same core self.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I have come to the conclusion that your worse self is just a part of who you are as the the better self, it's merely combining the two in the most natural way. Because this worse self still has properties of survival within it that could be just as valuable as that of your healthiest self. Plus, I agree that you aren't, unless schizophrenic, a combined version of multiple personalities.

 

[Unkindloving]

The 'worst me' is a part of me. All of it is ME. I don't think anyone stays so 'baseline' that they're the same day in and day out, or from one period of life to the other. We all may need to adjust or will have certain sides of our personality come to the forefront in a given situation or life 'phase', and in another phase/situation will have another side of ourselves come to the forefront.

I'm a believer that we each have core, elemental aspects to who we are, but that those expand outwards to varying behaviors, and also additional layers of processing, and also new perceptions or choices made over time as we gain more life experience.

The Worst Me is no more the 'Real Me' than the Best Me. They're all just extensions/'modes' of the same core self.

+A Bajillion

 

[Silveresque]

I have come to the conclusion that your worse self is just a part of who you are as the the better self, it's merely combining the two in the most natural way. Because this worse self still has properties of survival within it that could be just as valuable as that of your healthiest self. Plus, I agree that you aren't, unless schizophrenic, a combined version of multiple personalities.

I agree with you and Cascaseco. I don't believe we can ever really be anyone other than ourselves, and even when we're under stress and reveal a different part of ourselves, that too is in character. That said, I've always believed that my "true self" is the best part of myself, the part that I strive to become. Whenever I disappoint this "true self" by acting less in character, it causes me pain, which helps me to grow toward my true self, the "me" at my best.

 

[Salomé]

I don't really understand the OP. You seem to be using type theory to disprove type theory. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to type yourself by your "shadow" type, you make a nonsense of the whole concept of having a "shadow". You've knotted yourself in a strange loop...

 

[nanook]

i cant read a thread about such a stupid notion because it will drive me insane to see how much people agree with it.

the thing is, that most people have an unreflected way of using words like real and unreal. this is true in pretty much any context.

people try to reduce their thinking, or their image of reality, to as little perspectives as possible.

if you can fix that, your line of reasoning won't be too silly, i guess.

anyone has an upper limit of perspectives (which can increase with age), you should just try to reach that limit, always, instead of lazily reducing 99% of reality into unreal things, until only "the real thing" is left, which will completely freeze both intellectual and personal growth.

now, in the context of type i can easily see a smart definition of true or real, because type is about a path of development, and your original/fall-back cognitive-circuits, while as real as any other circuit, will always be the first you ever had (established), and so they define the first coordinate of your development, which defines your path, which is your type. (even though, by now the transforming character of integration may have changed which circuit is most "established" in your system, right now)

in most other psychological cases it's more like this: the most valuable thing in your system is the meta-intelligence of your choices about which circuit you use. to always use the original circuit, because you deem it to be more "real" would be the most retarded reasoning of self-management. it's the psychopathic move, that says: humans are basically animals, empathy or social behavior is just fake, and fake is "false" and "should be avoided". the best circuit to use is the one that is best suited for the job, which ever job that is. all circuits are real, even if they are just "compensatory". compensated social behavior is better than none and it is perfectly real.

regression is real, when it happens, while it happens (due to an external trigger, a certain aspect of the "job" you try to accomplish). it does not determine your "real" potential. it may be reflect the best potential in this specific situation. but generally speaking, please try to avoid regression. "growing up" (mental development) does not stop at 21, it never stops (ideally), and it certainly is not meant to go back to your traumatic childhood either.

 

[nanook]

mrcockburn, i apologize!!!

it must seem like i called your thread/notion stupid, but if you read closely, you may notice, that i was not actually replying to you, but to a widespread cultural "meme", a way of thinking (superficial rationality, blatantly reducing perspectives) which causes huge damage to the world, and i always get all emotional and wound up, when somebody hurts my dear world

this came to mind, because of an association that crossed my mind, not because of what someone wrote in the thread. no hurt feelings intended!

 

[mrcockburn]

I don't really understand the OP. You seem to be using type theory to disprove type theory. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to type yourself by your "shadow" type, you make a nonsense of the whole concept of having a "shadow". You've knotted yourself in a strange loop...

It's possible to use type theory without agreeing with 100% of it. And in any case, what I'm really trying to say is that people should type themselves according to their worst memories, when they were displaying their worse behavior.

I don't really believe in shadow=opposite theory...or any shadow theory. I think that your worst self is the real you, and any self-directed improvements are learned, situational and inauthentic. I think people will find their worst selves to type the same, the opposite of their standard type, or any other of the 14 types.

This stems from a personal philosophy that people are naturally destructive and only clean up their acts due to societal incentives. If someone disagrees, they'll probably have the opposite MBTI theory.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

The idea of "worst you = real you" prescibest a certain type of a person, but not others.

 

[nanook]

lol true

 

[Thalassa]

How dare you have those thoughts.
We're all losers on the verge of being dragged down into the quicksand of neurosis!

Nobody said anything about anyone being a loser, and being neurotic doesn't make you a loser.

All people are neurotic to some degree, some more than others.

You really overreact to things. I thought I was bad.

 

[Thalassa]

There's nothing like people on a Jungian personality type website saying that they essentially don't believe in Jung's theories, even while they continue to display their personality types like badges on their profiles.

 

[Jaguar]

Nobody said anything about anyone being a loser, and being neurotic doesn't make you a loser.

You're one of the few people who can't recognize sarcasm in a post.
Go away.

 

[Ginkgo]

The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.