Have you ever been told by a friend or family member that you act differently when you’re with your parents versus your friend group? Or when you go out with your church friends and you act differently than when you’re in church. If you have (which is very common) you’ve stumbled upon one of psychology’s greatest mysteries; Are we one person, or a collection of different parts of ourselves?
It’s relatively common. It might not be the most obvious thing in the world but it’s definitely there (for the most of us at least). The way you talk, the jokes you tell, or the stories and analogies you share, are they actually the same across all aspects of your life?
Personally, I’ve always been told this by my school friends. They say stuff like “how would your mom feel if you said that” or “what’s your dad gonna say about that, huh?”. For you it might not be something that could be used against you, but it’s there, one way or another.
The science behind our shifting selves
It’s actually backed by real research too! Stanford researchers have found that our personalities change depending on where we are. So who you are could actually depend on where you are or where you grew up. At home, people tend to be more introverted and anxious, but in any social setting, they become more open-minded, extroverted and agreeable.
A good example could be how African-American students might code-switch between African American Vernacular English with friends and family, but use Standard English in a classroom setting. It’s a tendency of living beings to adapt or to fit the norms of our environments. And we could all do this. This is what’s stopping you from breaking out in a perfect symphony at a work meeting or laughing at a funeral. We’re constantly reading the room and adjusting our code.
Why do we do this?
A sentence or two ago might be it, but another reason might be roles that society gives us aka social roles. Social roles are a set of expectations for how you’re supposed to behave in a certain place or position i.e. authority. The role of a student has a script, the role of a president has a script, and the role of a depressed computer science major also has a script. They primarily come from two different places. First is ascribed status; these are the ones you’re born into, like race, gender, or the family you come from. And then there’s achieved status; these are the roles you choose or earn, like being a student, professor, scientists, or once again, a depressed computer science or engineering major
Both types are powerful in shaping our actions and personality. You literally juggle these all day. You might be a student, an employee, a sibling and a friend all at once. Each of these roles have unwritten rules expected from you to adhere to.
The sociologist Irving Goffman puts it well enough. He theorized that all of life is a performance act. We’re all actors on that stage, playing our parts and taking cues from the audience: Our friends, co-workers, family members, teachers and so on. He called it the dramaturgical perspective. Essentially, all the world’s a play and we’re all just actors who play our parts.
When scripts collide
Juggling all these roles and following all these rules work well. Until it doesn’t.
When one script contradicts or collides with another, that’s when you feel absurdly uncomfortable and you start feeling like your mind is tearing itself apart. And psychology has a great way of putting this.
It’s called the self-discrepancy theory developed by E. Tory Higgins. His idea was that our emotional turmoil comes from the gaps between the different versions of our personality we carry around with our heads. Higgins breaks it down into three main selves:
- Your actual self: The person you think you are, right here, right now in this current part in time
- Your ideal self: The person you dream of being; Your ultimate goal
- Your ought self: The person you feel you should be based on duties, responsibilities, and what you think others expect of you.
Higgins theory predicts that different gaps create different bad feelings or emotions. So if there’s a gap between your actual self and your ideal self, you feel unachieved, dejected and disappointed. But if there’s a gap between your actual self and your ought self, you feel agitated, anxious and maybe even scared. Like me, who’s writing a blog post while I’m supposed to be taking notes for my biology class even though I know I have an exam next Friday. I’m at that level of anxiety.
This whole battle is named something you’ve probably heard of, cognitive dissonance. It’s the feeling of dread when your actions don’t line up with your values or believe two things that can’t both be true nor coexist. Dissonance creates those awful feelings of guilt, shame or just feeling off. And those feelings motivate your brain to do almost ANYTHING to resolve the conflict and make the bad feeling go away.
The mind’s defence: compartmentalisation
One of the ways our brains resolve this is through compartmentalisation. Think of your mind having a closet with different shoeboxes: your work box, relationship box, social box etc. The secret to this is that when you have one box open, you ignore all the other ones and focus squarely on that box. That’s why doctors might put their biases or emotions aside when dealing with a patient or why a business person might put aside their ethics to make a decision. “It’s just business” they may say.
That’s why I used my whole afternoon to note down a chapter out of my bio textbook to avoid the feeling of dread every time I walked into my bio class without the knowledge from the textbook I was supposed to write and why I’m squarely focused on writing and finishing this post right now.
Compartmentalization is our brain’s way of keeping conflicting ideas away from each other. And it’s usually automatic. Our brain does it to shield us from the anxious feeling from the turmoil we might be subjected to. But this leads to a really deep question:
What price do we pay for dividing our lives’ perfectly? When we get so good at blocking off different aspects of our lives, it might lead to something called a moral void, a space where self proclaimed good people may allow themselves to do not-so-good things.
When boxes become different people
Now let’s put this on blast, what happens when these boxes start to feel like entirely different people?
Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is defined by at least two different personality states. You might have known it by its old name, multiple personality disorder. A leading theory of how DID develops is both fascinating and saddening at the same time. It suggests that we’re all born with different, separate systems and behaviours, one for attachment, exploration and play. Normally, through healthy parenting, these personalities can be interwoven to form one integrated personal identity. But if a child experiences severe and continuous trauma, the integration process could fail, leading to distinct personalities and a non cohesive identity.
DID as a topic is extremely controversial however, as it really comes down to two main ideas. The traumagenic model says DID is a real, normal response to horrific trauma while the sociogenic model argues that it’s more of a social construct, influenced by therapists, psychiatrists and even culture, rather than a scientific diagnostic. And they may point to the number of cases:
Before 1970, fewer than 200 known cases of DID in the entire globe. By the year 2000, it had skyrocketed to around 40,000 cases. Supporters of the trauma model say the increase was due to an increase in mental health awareness. Critics from the sociogenic side say it’s more of a social fad.
I do think it’s important to listen to those who actually live with it. “It is not fun never knowing who you are… not fun having your own decisions sabotaged by yourself” This quote, from someone on the social media platform Reddit, shows the painful and exhaustive struggle to just have your own self identity.
The path forward: psychological flexibility
But this also raises the question: How are we supposed to live our own authentic lines when we’re adhering to several social codes?
Psychologists would argue it’s true something called psychological flexibility. Steven Hayes, the pioneer of this approach defines psychological flexibility, as “the ability to stay present with our experiences and to move toward valued behavioural goals” regardless of what thoughts, emotions or sensations may come up.
Instead of trying to be the same person everywhere, or put down your values to be different people everywhere, this approach is different because it causes you to learn to act consistently with your core values while adapting your behavior to what each situation actually requires. It’s not about having one rigid identity or having multiple distinct ones, it’s about having the mental fortitude to respond to situations while keeping your core values intact.
It comes down to three things. Being present and aware of your surroundings in the moment, being open to new ideas and avenues for discovery and allowing yourself to feel emotions without judging them or letting them control your actions.
It’s actually backed by research studies too. During the pandemic, researchers found that people with higher psychological flexibility maintained a better mental state despite the unprecedented stress and uncertainty at the time. They could adapt easily to quickly changing circumstances without compromising on their values.
It’s essentially to be more alive and less rigid to life in general.
The real question
A quote from another Reddit user underscores this point: “Maybe the goal isn’t to figure out what you want to be, a doctor, a writer, whatever. Maybe the real question is how you want to be in your own life.”
It shifts the focus from the different lives we rigidly subject ourselves to to an internal way of being.
So maybe we’ve been going on the wrong tangent all along. The issue isn’t whether we’re one person or many, it’s whether we can adhere to the foundational truths and values we hold onto while adapting to life’s demands.
Joseph Hu Doe Phuc is a long-time Komodo dragon enthusiast from northern Myanmar. He speaks Vietnamese with a hint of a Ukrainian accent.