# Alter Egos and Type Personas



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I have an alter ego. It's the persona I use at work, and it works effectively, but it's completely different from who I am in real life. Obviously, I'm not in this forum to discuss what it's like to have an alter ego. What I'm curious about is whether or not you fine people here on PerC think alter egos actually process information differently from the real self. I personally think so, but don't think explaining why to people who don't have an alter ego will do any good. In any case, just spew your immediate thoughts and hypotheses on the matter. I'm open to and looking forward to hearing your opinions


----------



## Mouse222 (Jun 29, 2011)

I believe an alter ego will process differently, I mean, it is an alternate to one's ego.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Interesting topic. There's a lot of connotation out there on this subject. What most people are calling an "alter-ego" is really just a part of one's persona. I would consider the persona to be a _facet _of one's core psyche, the easiest example being the difference between our public and private personas. An alter-ego is far more complex, and may-or-may not be the hallmark of a serious psychological problem. 

Most of us have a persona that we show to the world, and one we show only a select few. It is a necessary and healthy form of self-protection. We create necessary boundaries between how much we let strangers and acquaintences know about us, and how much we let those whom we are more intimate with know about us. This is a sensible precaution. Some people are untrustworthy. The only way to find out whether or not they are or not is to invest time and trust. We usually don't have enough of either to go around, so we take necessary steps to limit our exposure to the world. In the same token, we have people who we have invested time and trust in; these people are part of our inner circle: family, lovers, and close friends. This is not a deception per se, rather, it is setting limits on how much of ourselves we wish to project to those who we do not know if we can trust with our most intimate and private details. 

When it comes to alter-egos, this usually isn't just about boundaries, but about decieving the self, others, or both, for a wide variety of reasons. This involves deviations and even outright contradictions of one's core pscyhe. It could be argued that actors create alter-egos in which they appear to be a completely different person. People with many different physical and psychological conditions may also create alter-egos. Common motivations are feelings of shame, embarrassment, inadequacy, or to avoid dealing with a serious physical and psychological trauma. An alter-ego may be seen as a way of coping with something that is too much for the ego to handle. Rather than shut down, the ego creates a personality specifically to protect it from whatever it is that overwhelmed it. The result is a person who is relatively normal most of the time. The alter-ego is only evoked when there is a fear that one's deception is being threatened. The far extreme of this sort of thing is disassociative personality, or multiple personality disorders. 

So, would you say that what you stated as a "alter-ego" is more likely just a persona based on boundaries, or do you really feel a need to deliberately decieve yourself and others as to who you really are?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

But its not technically an alter-ego as in you have two egos. That would be some major schizophrenia going on. Personas are an extension of your ego. Sort of like dressing it up or putting clothes on it and just like wearing clothes it is necessary, there's nothing wrong with it. It only becomes a problem when people over identify with their personas and think that the persona is their actual personality (think of some celebrities, politicians, musicians, CEOs, etc). If the ego often represents a failure to see the shadow and thus the whole self, then over identifying with the persona represents a failure to even see ego (sort of like a person who truly thinks he is what he wears). 

It is quite possible that aspects of your various personas will seem inconsistent with ego identity because often personas are bestowed onto us by our environment, conditioning, parents, expectations of the world around us, etc. Our parents begin conditioning us before our ego-identities really develop often at very, very young ages. So often aspects of our personas feel more like 'us' than our ego identities. For most people, they were told who they were long before they figured out who they were. And many people wear these personas uncomfortably (we've all seen the person who obviously is trying to be someone he is not). But a person who grows up say in a fundamentalist religious orthodoxy may come across in the same manner because that is the role that is expected of him, and even conceptualize things through that lens (I mean how would he have learned to do otherwise), but still be operating in a way that betrays his true ego identity. Such a person would likely have major identity issues and probably some major depression and perhaps even feel stuck and perplexed at the inner disconnect. 

The truest we would get to alter-ego would be a person in the grip of their inferior function or a person completely acting out his shadow. Because the inferior function is 1) the closest thing to the shadow (or who you are but don't recognize) and 2) represents the opposite of your dominant or go-to way of operating, truly switching gears to the inferior function would produce something of a Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Such a person might even say as Naomi Quenk does "was that really me?" Or later be in disbelief ("I can't believe I did that," or "I don't know what came over me.")


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Technically, alter-ego is a contraction for "alternate-ego," so the implication is that one is forming another personality distinct from the original. 

"Persona" comes from the Ancient Greeks and Romans, its root meaning has to do with masks, particularly those worn by stage actors of the time.

As previously stated, the ego develops personas as a means of establishing healthy boundaries: public vs. private, work vs. home, etc. This is done because not everyone can be trusted. We have limited time to determine who is trustworthy from who is not, so we hold some part of ourselves back, away from view. 

Furthermore, I contend that an alter-ego is the next step after a persona. It may not be a full-blown distinctive personality, but it's headed in that direction.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Technically, alter-ego is a contraction for "alternate-ego," so the implication is that one is forming another personality distinct from the original.
> 
> "Persona" comes from the Ancient Greeks and Romans, its root meaning has to do with masks, particularly those worn by stage actors of the time.
> 
> ...


This is outside of how Jung constructed the ego, but if such a thing were the next step after a persona it would be highly problematic and would represent yet another dissociation or splintering of the self. This is schizophrenia at this point. No one would be able to operate under anything resembling normalcy under such conditions.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Most of us have a persona that we show to the world, and one we show only a select few.


 People have more than two personae.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> This is outside of how Jung constructed the ego, but if such a thing were the next step after a persona it would be highly problematic and would represent yet another dissociation or splintering of the self. This is schizophrenia at this point. No one would be able to operate under anything resembling normalcy under such conditions.


Jung was good, but he did not know everything. He was one of the first theorists in a brand new field. He barely scratched the surface.The other problem is seperating fiction from fact. Popular entertainment has created a very different idea of what it means to have an alter-ego. 

The current research indicates that your scenario is possible, but not necessarily inevitable. A person can sustain an alter-ego for some time but the stress of doing so is cumulative. 



> Having an alter ego at times can be beneficial, provided it does not go overboard. It gives the person a sense of completeness. However, if the alter ego is more perfect than your real self, then it can result in low self-esteem. It is also at times seen that if the alter ego is dominating, then it can prevent a person from leading a normal life. If you have an alter ego then it is important that you don’t let it dominate over your personal life. This can affect your friends and family in a negative manner.


Alter Ego Definition

Consider men who marry more than one woman in different cities and manage to have multiple families for years without anyone catching on. It can be sustained, but it eventually takes a toll. It can cause splintering and disassociation, but it does not have to right away, and it might not happen at all. 

Normalcy is relative. Humans are highly adaptable and resiliant. What helps a con-man pull off a con is just how willing marks are to to believe in the con. Some people demonstrate amazing skill at pulling off all sorts of complex deceptions. 

I am saying that one's ego creates roles/personas as a means of limiting one's vulnerability to outsiders. The motivation of personas is not deception, but a determination of what consititutes the difference between public and private boundaries. Creating an alter-ego is a further progression along these lines, however, the motivation is deliberately deceptive in nature. An alter-ego is a greater investment of time and effort than a persona.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> People have more than two personae.


Agreed. In this instance I was simply attempting to keep it simple and focused.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

@tanstaafl28 

I have an alter-ego.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I try to limit my use of alter-ego in @tanstaafl28 sense.
I don't feel comfortable living a life where I have to deceive myself or others.

Now I use personae obviously, but I try to limit it to deviate too far from how I perceive myself to be.
This may leave me vulnerable in one sense, but truth and honesty are pretty powerful weapons if you
have little reason to fear them yourself. The person who like to use the type of vulnerability in question
usually have lots of persona/alter-ego issues and can't handle unedited truth well.

Like rock/paper/scissors every way of dealing with others have a strength and a weakness.
As a Fi/Se user I've come to value things as they are over how they can appear.
The false persons greatest foe is the truth.
The straight up person has little to fear from it, 
and will generally not put themselves in situations that require to sacrifice the truth too much.

I love when I can answer an accusation with YES! Cause then the other person have lost all the power.
If you admit it then there is no blackmail value in the accusation.
The less you have to hide the less you have to fear the truth.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't see why an alter-ego wouldn't process information on its own. But maybe it depends on what KIND of alter-ego it is.

Like, if it's an alter-ego that is being employed by the ego personality then it seems like there would be a hierarchy of processing. The alter-ego would process the stuff your ego doesn't want to process, then your ego personality would process the results of your alter-ego. 

I don't think the alter-ego would be able to process information with the same range of ability that your ego can, and having a very developed alter-ego seems like it would drain both the ego personality and the alter-ego of their depth and range.

I know someone who has an alter-ego that is completely contradictory to his other personality. Neither can experience the same range of emotions or reasoning as the other; but ultimately, his alter-ego works for his other personality. It's unclear to me whether he really rejects his other personality for his alter-ego, or if he just publicly rejects it for the purpose of convincing others.

His alter-ego is very empathetic, helpful, enthusiastic, charming, selfless--he's able to make almost anyone like him immediately. He has perfect tone of voice, and over-enthusiastic emotional expressions. It doesn't express contrary views to those around him, nor does it show or express anger (I may be exaggerating there). But his other personality is the opposite--it's unable to experience empathy, and can only experience being victimized by slights, anger, rage, hate, disgust, disdain, and righteousness (its also very selfish). It is exploitative, abusive, and rigidly judgmental, whereas the alter-ego is encouraging, understanding, and empathetic. Both of them suffer from a limited range.

SO, for him, his personality cannot empathize, but his alter-ego is excellent at doing it around others. His ultimate behavior is governed by his IDK, dominant ego, allowing him to exploit others and abuse them, using the alter-ego to extract what is desired from them (like sex, trust, and even money and goods) using empathy and agreeableness. I think this is probably how good con-artists work too. 

But the reason for his alter-ego is probably different than the reason for someone with multiple-personality disorder. Maybe someone with multiple personality disorder wouldn't even have an ego hierarchy. And I don't want to characterize all alter-egos like this example--I know that when I get too enveloped in a persona, I can start losing range and depth of my emotions too (or maybe that was purpose for creating it in the first place for me?)

I don't really know what I'm talking about, but you did invite spewing.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

meltedsorbet said:


> I don't really know what I'm talking about, but you did invite spewing.


Nothing wrong with that. Thrown down your thought processes. That's how understanding is built. :wink:


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> @_tanstaafl28_
> 
> I have an alter-ego.


Have you thought about why you went to this extreme? What made you feel a need to alter your ego?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Have you thought about why you went to this extreme? What made you feel a need to alter your ego?


Why i have one isn't for you to know. It's off-topic anyway.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> But its not technically an alter-ego as in you have two egos. That would be some major schizophrenia going on.


Sorry for nitpick but you don't mean schizofrenia, you mean dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder). Schizofrenia does not cause one to don a personality different to your ego. Your ego is stable. 

As for alter-ego, I think it really depends what alter-ego means in this context. I am not sure I agree with LiquidLight here at all with how the inferior would necessarily be represented as a feeling of it "not being me". It would for one first of all suggest that the ego and the sense of self and identity is much more stable than what we actually notice in real life and I think it is right-out wrong to say that we only possess one identity since humans clearly don't. We act differently depending on the situation and I think this might also lead to different function use, personally, since our behavior is definitely part affected by how we reason.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> Why i have one isn't for you to know. It's off-topic anyway.


I respect your right to privacy.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Nothing wrong with that. Thrown down your thought processes. That's how understanding is built. :wink:


Really! 
Actually, I'm really glad about this thread. I had been wondering about some things recently, and reading the posts here really helped to clarify things and tie them together! 

Thanks for being patient.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Sorry for nitpick but you don't mean schizofrenia, you mean dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder). Schizofrenia does not cause one to don a personality different to your ego. Your ego is stable.
> 
> As for alter-ego, I think it really depends what alter-ego means in this context. I am not sure I agree with LiquidLight here at all with how the inferior would necessarily be represented as a feeling of it "not being me". It would for one first of all suggest that the ego and the sense of self and identity is much more stable than what we actually notice in real life and I think it is right-out wrong to say that we only possess one identity since humans clearly don't. We act differently depending on the situation and I think this might also lead to different function use, personally, since our behavior is definitely part affected by how we reason.


Well schizophrenia and Dissociative Identity Disorder and a whole host of other issues would arise here. But I suppose it depends on the context here in which we are arguing the construct of ego. I chose to argue from Jung's standpoint since this site is a Jungian based site (we could just as easily have argued Freud or any other psychoanalytic theory just the same). But in a Jungian sense, any splintering or dissociation of the self will result in problems. That's why the ego causes problems, the functions cause problems, the persona causes problems, the functions cause problems, the complexes cause problems, etc. Because they all represent a splintering or spitting off of the complete self into smaller parts. Anytime you break something that is meant to be whole into pieces and still expect it to perform as a whole, you will have issues - this is, in part, the foundation of Jungian psychology.

As far as identity I think we need to further define the term. Because there is self-identity, or who we generally know ourselves to be, which I think is generally pretty solid in most psychologically healthy people. Unless you know lots of people who run around thinking they are someone completely different day after day or even moment to moment. But there is also social identity which of course is ephemeral and fluid (and some people confuse their social identity, which is a form of persona, with their self-identity). But the two should not really be confused. I'd be willing to wager a good sum of money (if I had it) that most people, when put up against the wall have at least a good idea of who they think they are (they might surprise themselves from time to time), but generally when people say "I am..." they say it confidently. You couldn't take a personality test and recognize the results as "you" otherwise. One day you'd be INTP and the next ESFP and we intrinsically know that its likely not both. The person is most likely one or the other or none of the above or just doesn't know themselves very well. Their roles may change, their presentations may change, even the way they think about themselves or the world around them may evolve, but I'd be careful to say that this results in a sort of 'new person' or 'different person' so to speak. Primarily because most people are not even aware of the depth of the influences that shape their primary ego identities let alone trying to figure out some other ego-identity. If we sat people down on a analyst's couch no doubt there might be much to discover about who we are and the forces that have shaped us that many people would admit or realize. 

Imagine a person who had never seen a mirror before and then sees his reflection in one, one day. To the uninitiated, he might not recognize the reflection as 'himself' or maybe even think there was another person there. And there are still aspects of that reflection that the person would still not be able to see, like his back side. Thats a little bit like how self-discovery and self-analysis works you have to be open to the fact that what you see is not all there is, and for most people who have not really had any real means of quantifying how they look at themselves (except maybe through an MBTI test) it can be like learning to see your reflection for the first time. You might not be sure if what you are seeing, or told you are seeing is truly you. It's something of a wrestling match (I think most of us have had the experience with MBTI for example, where we pondered if the results were an accurate snapshot of who we were, or not broad enough, or to broad, and we leave it and come back to it and leave it again, and so on until we get a clearer mental image). It takes some sorting out if it didn't we wouldn't need personality tests and websites like PerC and psychologists and psychiatrists and pastors and counselors, etc. So my caution to those who always try to make the theory fit them, is not to be doctrinaire, but rather to ask "how much do you know that you know about yourself." And to what degree do you not know what you do not know? This gets past the silly debates about dom-tert loops or this function this or that function that and all the trying to make the theory work rather than the pursuit of self-knowledge.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Well schizophrenia and Dissociative Identity Disorder and a whole host of other issues would arise here. But I suppose it depends on the context here in which we are arguing the construct of ego. I chose to argue from Jung's standpoint since this site is a Jungian based site (we could just as easily have argued Freud or any other psychoanalytic theory just the same). But in a Jungian sense, any splintering or dissociation of the self will result in problems. That's why the ego causes problems, the functions cause problems, the persona causes problems, the functions cause problems, the complexes cause problems, etc. Because they all represent a splintering or spitting off of the complete self into smaller parts. Anytime you break something that is meant to be whole into pieces and still expect it to perform as a whole, you will have issues - this is, in part, the foundation of Jungian psychology.


Feel like this is a Ji vs Je thing mostly since I argue from my personal viewpoint and not so much what fits into this forum or not but how I understand things. 


> As far as identity I think we need to further define the term. Because there is self-identity, or who we generally know ourselves to be, which I think is generally pretty solid in most psychologically healthy people. Unless you know lots of people who run around thinking they are someone completely different day after day or even moment to moment. But there is also social identity which of course is ephemeral and fluid (and some people confuse their social identity, which is a form of persona, with their self-identity). But the two should not really be confused. I'd be willing to wager a good sum of money (if I had it) that most people, when put up against the wall have at least a good idea of who they think they are (they might surprise themselves from time to time), but generally when people say "I am..." they say it confidently. You couldn't take a personality test and recognize the results as "you" otherwise. One day you'd be INTP and the next ESFP and we intrinsically know that its likely not both. The person is most likely one or the other or none of the above or just doesn't know themselves very well. Their roles may change, their presentations may change, even the way they think about themselves or the world around them may evolve, but I'd be careful to say that this results in a sort of 'new person' or 'different person' so to speak. Primarily because most people are not even aware of the depth of the influences that shape their primary ego identities let alone trying to figure out some other ego-identity. If we sat people down on a analyst's couch no doubt there might be much to discover about who we are and the forces that have shaped us that many people would admit or realize.


Well, coming from a different branch of sciences than most people (social anthropology is rather uncommon to study), I disagree. I think a person's identity is actually quite malleable and many people are constantly soul-searching _to find who they truly authentically are_. This is at least what much of my research, and that people constantly try to express a certain identity to reinforce this feeling of an authentic self. 

I would attest that the feeling of self being stable has more to do with the phenomenology of time and how we are capable of linking each separate moment into something coherent, e.g. synchronic co-consciousness. I also think the fact that people do think and feel that they shift so much (some people seem to never be able to truly settle on what they type are, and isn't deciding your type just another identity you take on?) and that people can even change behavior according to the stereotypical view they possess regarding a certain identity suggests that identity is again, malleable and that we constantly strive to identity with something external to define the core ego which also again would suggest that the ego is malleable.


> Imagine a person who had never seen a mirror before and then sees his reflection in one, one day. To the uninitiated, he might not recognize the reflection as 'himself' or maybe even think there was another person there. And there are still aspects of that reflection that the person would still not be able to see, like his back side. Thats a little bit like how self-discovery and self-analysis works you have to be open to the fact that what you see is not all there is, and for most people who have not really had any real means of quantifying how they look at themselves (except maybe through an MBTI test) it can be like learning to see your reflection for the first time. You might not be sure if what you are seeing, or told you are seeing is truly you. It's something of a wrestling match (I think most of us have had the experience with MBTI for example, where we pondered if the results were an accurate snapshot of who we were, or not broad enough, or to broad, and we leave it and come back to it and leave it again, and so on until we get a clearer mental image). It takes some sorting out if it didn't we wouldn't need personality tests and websites like PerC and psychologists and psychiatrists and pastors and counselors, etc. So my caution to those who always try to make the theory fit them, is not to be doctrinaire, but rather to ask "how much do you know that you know about yourself." And to what degree do you not know what you do not know? This gets past the silly debates about dom-tert loops or this function this or that function that and all the trying to make the theory work rather than the pursuit of self-knowledge.


But similarly, a person can see their mirror reflection every day and they have been told this is who they are but one day they feel that this is not who they are. They desire a change of self and not just who they are seen as but who they _truly authentically are_. This has nothing to do with suddenly seeing a new aspect of themselves they didn't know about since their mirror reflection has been the same for several years. They know their face inside out. Yet they can feel that their face is not them. I agree with @tanstaafl28 that I don't think it must result in some kind of disorder. People constantly compartmentalize and change behavior depending on the situation. The question is whether the person is willing to see every behavioral change as themselves or not. But this doesn't mean that they might think that this continuity is who they are either.

Regardless, I feel that we are approaching this from very different perspectives. You see it in relation to personality type, I see it just in relation to how I understand it I guess.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well my degrees are social psychology and sociology so we're not that far off. But I think that people soul-search or whatever we call it as a way of separating the signal from the noise so to speak. To untangle all of the things that society, upbringing, conditioning, culture, etc., have piled on and understand the core self. This level of self-authenticity is at the core of many religious beliefs, and even the underlying tenet of analytical psychology, the process of individuation or the process of 'becoming yourself.' But I think the problem is for most people, that they never get there, or even get that far down the road. Happy to carry on with the fodder and foolishness of everyday men never really seeing the potential inside (or at best having moments or glimpses of it). 

I actually see personality type as a very overstated aspect of self-development. Useful as a metric to help someone quantify or put language to phenomenon. A great heuristic perhaps, but one that, at least around here probably gets taken too far into some sort of doctrine that even its architects would not have approved of. But I do think that Jung's ideas are consistent with some archetypal consistencies about the human experience. That within everyone is a true center of being, self (as he called it), life-force (as new-agers call it), spirit or soul (as religious people call it) that represents the authentic person. And that we, often necessarily just by living day to day are often pulled in directions inconsistent with that self and the result, this dissociation, this moving away from our true self causes problems of inauthenticity and its requisite symptoms (depression, non-biologically based psychological problems, etc). Because we are taught to be something. And we are expected to be something. And we do want to be something. And often these things do not agree with one another in any sort of practical way and so you see people in all sorts of confusion trying to figure it out (or giving up). 

I guess my underlying point of all this is not that these phenomenon--the different expositions of behavior, identify confusion and so on, don't exist, but rather that they should not be quantified in silly ways (i.e. the reason I act this way is because I have two egos).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Well my degrees are social psychology and sociology so we're not that far off. But I think that people soul-search or whatever we call it as a way of separating the signal from the noise so to speak. To untangle all of the things that society, upbringing, conditioning, culture, etc., have piled on and understand the core self. This level of self-authenticity is at the core of many religious beliefs, and even the underlying tenet of analytical psychology, the process of individuation or the process of 'becoming yourself.' But I think the problem is for most people, that they never get there, or even get that far down the road. Happy to carry on with the fodder and foolishness of everyday men never really seeing the potential inside (or at best having moments or glimpses of it).
> 
> I actually see personality type as a very overstated aspect of self-development. Useful as a metric to help someone quantify or put language to phenomenon. A great heuristic perhaps, but one that, at least around here probably gets taken too far into some sort of doctrine that even its architects would not have approved of. But I do think that Jung's ideas are consistent with some archetypal consistencies about the human experience. That within everyone is a true center of being, self (as he called it), life-force (as new-agers call it), spirit or soul (as religious people call it) that represents the authentic person. And that we, often necessarily just by living day to day are often pulled in directions inconsistent with that self and the result, this dissociation, this moving away from our true self causes problems of inauthenticity and its requisite symptoms (depression, non-biologically based psychological problems, etc). Because we are taught to be something. And we are expected to be something. And we do want to be something. And often these things do not agree with one another in any sort of practical way and so you see people in all sorts of confusion trying to figure it out (or giving up).
> *
> I guess my underlying point of all this is not that these phenomenon--the different expositions of behavior, identify confusion and so on, don't exist, but rather that they should not be quantified in silly ways (i.e. the reason I act this way is because I have two egos)*.


Perhaps. I am just saying that I think we tend to choose what we are and let us define or ego that way which suggests the malleability of it. People can be a certain way for many years to suddenly discard it when they feel it's not why they are anymore for various reasons. It could be because of feeling confined, that it limits them and their personal growth. It could be that the identity they donned socially changed and they no longer identify with that view, e.g. a political group changing its stances on things. For the matter, I do not believe in the concept of the soul or a core self. As I said, I simply address this feeling to existential anxiety and synchronic co-consciousness. I think the very fact that people soul-search is proof of that it does not exist - it creates an existential anxiety to the degree that people need to find it in order to feel at peace and secure with themselves and who they are. Their very existence is itself so undefined that they are willing to latch onto anything that provides with some kind of stability. I also notice that the more unstable people are, they more they tend to express and even exaggerate their desire to attain an authentic identity or the identity they think of as authentic. I think to part overcome this existetial anxiety (I do not think we can ever truly overcome it as this kind of existential anxiety is to me a fundamental aspect of the human condition) is simply to do with the acceptance that you cannot truly be authentic and this realization will alone give rise to a feeling of authentic-ness so to speak. It is about no longer caring to a degree. We all soul-search, but over-identification is dangerous. I guess that's what I'm saying and here I agree with you. I think over-identification can give rise to more extreme anxiety and instability too. 

For example, my research is focused on gender identity and masculinities. I have studied men who do not identity with certain gender roles, especially the more post-modern construct of masculinity that is depicted in traditional terms as feminized. The problem for these men is that they cannot identify with this new masculinity role for various reasons so they blame it on society as a whole. The problem however is that they fail to realize that they do not have to be a role, that masculinities is written in plural because every self-identified man (cisgender or otherwise) has his own way of understand what being a man means. 

So to reject this post-modern masculinity they go back to a more traditional and romanticized masculinity role to define their ego, but this very behavior seems to stem from an existential crisis that neither role can truly fulfill who they are. They over-identify or over-disagree-identify with a specific role in order to accept one and reject another instead of seeing everything in themselves. They do not have to be all these things because they can be any thing they want to be. I think the feeling of authenticity is mostly an illusion by rejecting the majority but this does not actually make you authentically authentic.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Ok so here is what I think:

If the ego chooses how we process information (practicaly choosing our type) then an alternate ego may choose an alternate type; so yes it is possible that the alternate ego could process information differently (at least in theory).
But in practice...... Well I am not sure you really have an alternate ego. (Even if you claim to) There is a huge definition between an alternate ego from a pshihological perspective and using a very well defined persona (another name, history, different behaviour and way of talking etc). 
The psihological definition implies that they are 2 different persons that live in the same body. The consciouness is dominated by them in turns. The person that has this problem can't switch between the egos. It's so hard to explain it in writing ))
It just hit me. Watch Fight Club. There is a very good portrait of this in that movie and hopefully you will understand what I am claiming.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

persona does effect your choices made to maintain the persona in the eyes of others. i dont see any point of using the word "alter ego" in this matter, because its just about stronger/weaker persona or different personas. i mean everyone has a persona, because everyone presents themselves to others somehow, this image that you present to others(while leaving things out, since you cant extravert all of that goes in your brains) = persona, and you cant really avoid it. even if you avoid people all together therefore have no mask for them, your persona is still someone who avoids people and the avoiding people works as sort of a mask.

now when it comes to over-identification with the persona(which is a varying scale, not an yes/no thing), you start to see yourself as who you display to others and start to more automatically present yourself in certain light and to maintain this persona, even if there is no one else than you around. this is when your persona starts to really affect your decisions in more destructive ways, since you kinda lose the sense of being true to yourself.

while anima is the way in which you relate to your personal unconscious, persona is the way you relate to the demands of external world. over-identification with persona would oppress its opposite, anima and cause disturbances in overall psyche, since you stop relating to your personal unconscious, i.e dont follow your soul.

like with pretty much everything, its healthy and necessary to have a persona or few of them, but it needs to be kept on a leash and under conscious control and separate it from the you who you truly are.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> @_tanstaafl28_
> 
> I have an alter-ego.


I have created them for short-term (acting) but I have not had a reason to sustain them.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

meltedsorbet said:


> Really!
> Actually, I'm really glad about this thread. I had been wondering about some things recently, and reading the posts here really helped to clarify things and tie them together!
> 
> Thanks for being patient.


You're welcome. I enjoy hearing others' points of view. I am always in search of the best possible solution, even if it isn't mine.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Regardless, I feel that we are approaching this from very different perspectives. You see it in relation to personality type, I see it just in relation to how I understand it I guess.


So it's a matter of perspective. Being able to take a step back and look at it from a more detached point of view might be something others are unable, or unwilling, to do. The whole point of a discussion like this is to put our POV's down on the table for examination, maybe comparison, _but not for competition_. I do not HAVE to be right, I just have to be true to how I think and feel about something.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> So it's a matter of perspective. Being able to take a step back and look at it from a more detached point of view might be something others are unable, or unwilling, to do. The whole point of a discussion like this is to put our POV's down on the table for examination, maybe comparison, _but not for competition_. I do not HAVE to be right, I just have to be true to how I think and feel about something.


As I said, unless the OP is going to provide with a definition of what is meant by alter-ego and persona we will not approach this in a unified manner anyway. I just don't care about whether something fits the frame of the discussion. I just provide what I think about it. Doesn't have to be a competition but just how I see ideas to be scrutinized.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> As I said, unless the OP is going to provide with a definition of what is meant by alter-ego and persona we will not approach this in a unified manner anyway. I just don't care about whether something fits the frame of the discussion. I just provide what I think about it. Doesn't have to be a competition but just how I see ideas to be scrutinized.


I do happen to like the way you think. :wink:


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I should also clarify that my comments are not directed @Ace Face who I love to death, just that many of these things can be explained away by more conventional measures that's all.


----------



## Azure_Sky (Oct 9, 2012)

I feel like I am almost always myself. I think that its just different parts of myself come out, depending on who I'm with and where I'm at.


----------

