• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

I am very curious about certain personality parameters and how they apply to the Autistic

The aggressiveness is a sign of disagreeableness as is the willingness to stand up for yourself. This is because you don't value social harmony as highly as asserting your needs and wants. There is some research to suggest that this indicates that people like you and I place our own interests above those of the tribe, whereas agreeable people place tribal interests above their own.

Sounds like you used to be aggressive, but have now learned to be assertive. The former is generally considered an undesirable behavior and the later a desirable behavior.

l like this observation, out in public on my own, l am assertive but low-key, non-communicating as much as l can get away with. In one job, l need to communicate, think with my "rat-pack", and reach a common good that benefits all. In my other job, l need to assertive when absloutely needed, overly nice when absloutely needed, yet totally state my boundaries towardsf totally disrespectful clients or employees. Of stating my boundaries as finally happened, but l was uncomfortable at first on that particular highway. Your comment made me realise the many hats l must change in and out of at the drop of a hat, so this change at first was a issue, but l find lizard skin now seems to change without me consciously ruminating as l first did raw from abusive divorce.
 
Yes ... and there's a difference between putting on a particular hat because it is required vs. simply because that is how you naturally express yourself in that particular situation.

For instance, I can be quite extroverted when out sailing on our boat, but quite introverted when sitting aboard at the slip. Why? I thinks it's because I feel exhilarated, confident, and connected with people who are out for a sail, but none of these things with people who just want to chit chat at the marina.
 
Yes ... and there's a difference between putting on a particular hat because it is required vs. simply because that is how you naturally express yourself in that particular situation.

For instance, I can be quite extroverted when out sailing on our boat, but quite introverted when sitting aboard at the slip. Why? I thinks it's because I feel exhilarated, confident, and connected with people who are out for a sail, but none of these things with people who just want to chit chat at the marina.

l get that, we balance our natural tendencies with our hiccup (our needs to not connect with the human race on any given day with idle anything).
 
Yet we cannot function without a sense of identity.
I'm not entirely certain that it is a question of "identity".
Certainly it is necessary to see oneself in relation to the outside world.

What we do, affects it.
What happens in it, affects us.
To understand this interplay is crucial to navigating the world with an "identity".

I'm not convinced that having an "identity", per-se, is necessary to navigate the outside world.

Identity:

"the fact of being who or what a person or thing is."

"the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is."

The first definition is only object designation.
The second definition seems to meet the criteria for what you are here calling "identity", but would seem to indicate "ego", or "personality", by your commentary.

It is a predictor, in a way, of the likely thoughts, words, or actions of an individual.
A way to organize them, in our lexicon of personalities.
A place from where predictions can be made concerning their behavior.
And, if we look more deeply, a place where we can recombine possible future events, and reactions, to temper our own actions to influence the other "identity" in a particular way, or cause a specific outcome or posture.
This, as far as I can see, is the only purpose or use, for having a "personality".

A "personality", or "ego", would seem only to exist to change perception(s) significantly enough to cause a change in physical reality, or the parameters for creating such, for the individual attempting to shape their experience by/with such a device.
(Did someone say "psychobabble"?)

I am aware, that my day to day existence is.
I am aware that I have very little control over what happens to me.
Therefore, most of life becomes adaptation to new circumstances, mostly those beyond our control.
It is at this point, that I percieve adherence to a "personality" as a self-imposed limitation.
The most distinguishing features, for me, of a "personality", aren't what the thing will allow, but what it will not allow.

One of the fundamental features of a personality is that it determines courses of action.
The immediate prerequisite, it would seem, is to determine a motivation--- "What am I trying to achieve?"

By asking the question itself, we betray that what we are trying to achieve is the most favorable set of circumstances, usually, for ourselves.

I do not believe that it is necessary, nor even advisable, to have a (strongly defined) ego.

It is liberating, educational, and rewarding to practice non-attachment.
Where concern for individual "comforts" is supplanted by the awareness of others, and their needs.
I.E. to weigh needs regardless of "persona", and it's relation to self.

For instance, in practicing non-attachment, thus has it occurred:
I am hungry.
I am situated in a way that I can easily buy food.
I buy a sandwich from a street-vendor.
I continue on my way.
I encounter an individual making a statement of destitution or hunger.
(This may be a sign, change-cup, or a verbal request.)
I assess my hunger, and my ability to alleviate it.
I assess the probable ability of the one making the plea to do the same.

If I judge that there is greater need in the individual making the plea---
I give that person my sandwich.

I could justify keeping it by any number of measurements or mechanisms--- I need only come up with a mildly, loosely fashioned narrative to justify retaining ownership.
It is unfortunate, but it is easier to make such decisions, when like decisions have already been made.

And so it is, that "personalities" are given to wild swings, dependent upon perception.

Incidentally, they are self-directing and their direction often is very "me" oriented.

In the above example, I disconnected personal gain or loss, from the equation.
I put the food where it was needed more, in my judgement.

It appears to me that this is an ego-less thought-action.

Yet, personality seems to be a "possession" and platform by which so many define themselves.

Many choose a personality, and then conduct themselves from the limits of it.

This seems counterintuitive, to me.

It would seem far more logical to
post-pone, or refuse altogether, to "choose" a personality, and just "be".

Allow "personality" to be a default position, defined by what one is not, rather than choosing a personality to define who or what someone is---and will be--- and hence dictate limitations to future interactions.

It seems to me that "personality" should exist with the oversight of logic, rather than logic existing with the oversight of "personality".

Two very different modes of existence.
---
And so, I am aware that the list of polar opposites that you have listed are all possible within the framework of the "personality" that is "me".
To conform even to proclivities, tendencies, is to take tools out of the toolbox, rather than putting them in, or adding them.
---
"Identity" is inversely correlated with freedom to act.

I don't like limitations.

But then, that's just "me".
 
I'm not entirely certain that it is a question of "identity".
Certainly it is necessary to see oneself in relation to the outside world.

What we do, affects it.
What happens in it, affects us.
To understand this interplay is crucial to navigating the world with an "identity".

I'm not convinced that having an "identity", per-se, is necessary to navigate the outside world.

Identity:

"the fact of being who or what a person or thing is."

"the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is."

The first definition is only object designation.
The second definition seems to meet the criteria for what you are here calling "identity", but would seem to indicate "ego", or "personality", by your commentary.

It is a predictor, in a way, of the likely thoughts, words, or actions of an individual.
A way to organize them, in our lexicon of personalities.
A place from where predictions can be made concerning their behavior.
And, if we look more deeply, a place where we can recombine possible future events, and reactions, to temper our own actions to influence the other "identity" in a particular way, or cause a specific outcome or posture.
This, as far as I can see, is the only purpose or use, for having a "personality".

A "personality", or "ego", would seem only to exist to change perception(s) significantly enough to cause a change in physical reality, or the parameters for creating such, for the individual attempting to shape their experience by/with such a device.
(Did someone say "psychobabble"?)

I am aware, that my day to day existence is.
I am aware that I have very little control over what happens to me.
Therefore, most of life becomes adaptation to new circumstances, mostly those beyond our control.
It is at this point, that I percieve adherence to a "personality" as a self-imposed limitation.
The most distinguishing features, for me, of a "personality", aren't what the thing will allow, but what it will not allow.

One of the fundamental features of a personality is that it determines courses of action.
The immediate prerequisite, it would seem, is to determine a motivation--- "What am I trying to achieve?"

By asking the question itself, we betray that what we are trying to achieve is the most favorable set of circumstances, usually, for ourselves.

I do not believe that it is necessary, nor even advisable, to have a (strongly defined) ego.

It is liberating, educational, and rewarding to practice non-attachment.
Where concern for individual "comforts" is supplanted by the awareness of others, and their needs.
I.E. to weigh needs regardless of "persona", and it's relation to self.

For instance, in practicing non-attachment, thus has it occurred:
I am hungry.
I am situated in a way that I can easily buy food.
I buy a sandwich from a street-vendor.
I continue on my way.
I encounter an individual making a statement of destitution or hunger.
(This may be a sign, change-cup, or a verbal request.)
I assess my hunger, and my ability to alleviate it.
I assess the probable ability of the one making the plea to do the same.

If I judge that there is greater need in the individual making the plea---
I give that person my sandwich.

I could justify keeping it by any number of measurements or mechanisms--- I need only come up with a mildly, loosely fashioned narrative to justify retaining ownership.
It is unfortunate, but it is easier to make such decisions, when like decisions have already been made.

And so it is, that "personalities" are given to wild swings, dependent upon perception.

Incidentally, they are self-directing and their direction often is very "me" oriented.

In the above example, I disconnected personal gain or loss, from the equation.
I put the food where it was needed more, in my judgement.

It appears to me that this is an ego-less thought-action.

Yet, personality seems to be a "possession" and platform by which so many define themselves.

Many choose a personality, and then conduct themselves from the limits of it.

This seems counterintuitive, to me.

It would seem far more logical to
post-pone, or refuse altogether, to "choose" a personality, and just "be".

Allow "personality" to be a default position, defined by what one is not, rather than choosing a personality to define who or what someone is---and will be--- and hence dictate limitations to future interactions.

It seems to me that "personality" should exist with the oversight of logic, rather than logic existing with the oversight of "personality".

Two very different modes of existence.
---
And so, I am aware that the list of polar opposites that you have listed are all possible within the framework of the "personality" that is "me".
To conform even to proclivities, tendencies, is to take tools out of the toolbox, rather than putting them in, or adding them.
---
"Identity" is inversely correlated with freedom to act.

I don't like limitations.

But then, that's just "me".

Think that this a excellent breakdown of a very hard to define subject, though personalities can seen as a wide interpretation of so many factors coming into play as your post defines. l choose to call this "personality " a persona l perform, l wear, l carry out simply defining it as status quo, status quo ego?, status quo to help society along at any given point in my day? l truly don't know, but myself or my personality of self must play by these rules or society does frown upon me. l do agree with this, no. My personality dictates that l am not in agreement with a lot of society norms, and l now understand the subtle brainwashing that seems to be constanly shoved on "personalities" for reasons that don't benefit any of us truly.
 
Wow!

Identity - I use the word here because it is being bandied around out there quite a lot. Identity politics for example. So ... identity, in this case, would refer to how a person identifies in comparison with others and particularly with a group ... like aspies, left wing, minority, female, young, poor, catholic, short .....

Personality (which could be one aspect of identity)- I use this word because of the myriad research into this aspect of living creatures. Meyers - Briggs and the big five theory are two examples. So ... personality, in this case, would refer to patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving within an individual and compared to other individuals.

Ego - I would define as a person's sense of self worth.
 
I am introverted and prefer to keep a low profile as well. However, when my dander is up all bets are off. This is just one instance where my disagreeableness trumps my introversion. I usually don't feel good about my behavior afterward (although sometimes I do) because it has brought unwanted attention, but I would rather that than not stand up for myself. Not because I think standing up for myself is noble, but because it is more important to me than keeping a low profile. I really wish that I do do both, but often cannot.

The marrying of these two traits ... introversion and disagreeableness has been the source of much personal conflict.
I grew up the youngest, which could have played a part in the agreeableness. As the youngest, you're always last to get your way, sit on the edge, get to pick, etc.
 
Wow!

Identity - I use the word here because it is being bandied around out there quite a lot. Identity politics for example. So ... identity, in this case, would refer to how a person identifies in comparison with others and particularly with a group ... like aspies, left wing, minority, female, young, poor, catholic, short .....

Personality (which could be one aspect of identity)- I use this word because of the myriad research into this aspect of living creatures. Meyers - Briggs and the big five theory are two examples. So ... personality, in this case, would refer to patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving within an individual and compared to other individuals.

Ego - I would define as a person's sense of self worth.
Identity--- still a comprehensive predictor.
Yes, it may define the specifics of one's existence, in a rudimentary sense.
But it also presupposes decision-making and action--- and is dependent upon ego.

Ego, a person's sense of self-worth, or self-importance, becomes the measuring stick which dictates action.

Observe:

Here's a bum.
Not working.
No money.
Asking for food.
My food.
I work.
I have money.
I bought a sandwich.
He wants food.

I'm more important.
I'll keep my food.

I keep what's "mine", and he keeps what's "his". Fair, right?
Except I get to keep my sandwich, and he gets to keep his hunger.

The only way that this inherent injustice can occur is through personality, grown in the fertile(foetid) soil of ego.

Since when has a strong sense of self-importance lent itself to selfless action?
Compassion? Charity?

No.
I disagree with the concept that one must have an "ego".
Somewhat reductionist, I disagree that one can only act as directed by ego.

Ego is a variable.
It can be changed.

To not do so is to be a slave to one's own false sense of permanence.
"I am who I am.", and,
"I'll always be this way.", sounds firm and confident.
In reality it is rigid and un-accommodating.

It is the ultimate proclamation of permanence by an impermanent being.

Why do we place more weight on who we want to be, than on who we ought to be?

Ego.

"I am more important to me than you are to me."

We are witness to where that line of reasoning takes us.

So...
Why do we feel this drive to define ourselves, concommittantly limiting ourselves?
 
Identity--- still a comprehensive predictor.
Yes, it may define the specifics of one's existence, in a rudimentary sense.
But it also presupposes decision-making and action--- and is dependent upon ego.

Ego, a person's sense of self-worth, or self-importance, becomes the measuring stick which dictates action.

Observe:

Here's a bum.
Not working.
No money.
Asking for food.
My food.
I work.
I have money.
I bought a sandwich.
He wants food.

I'm more important.
I'll keep my food.

I keep what's "mine", and he keeps what's "his". Fair, right?
Except I get to keep my sandwich, and he gets to keep his hunger.

The only way that this inherent injustice can occur is through personality, grown in the fertile(foetid) soil of ego.

Since when has a strong sense of self-importance lent itself to selfless action?
Compassion? Charity?

No.
I disagree with the concept that one must have an "ego".
Somewhat reductionist, I disagree that one can only act as directed by ego.

Ego is a variable.
It can be changed.

To not do so is to be a slave to one's own false sense of permanence.
"I am who I am.", and,
"I'll always be this way.", sounds firm and confident.
In reality it is rigid and un-accommodating.

It is the ultimate proclamation of permanence by an impermanent being.

Why do we place more weight on who we want to be, than on who we ought to be?

Ego.

"I am more important to me than you are to me."

We are witness to where that line of reasoning takes us.

So...
Why do we feel this drive to define ourselves, concommittantly limiting ourselves?

To be or not to be?
 
finally, somebody staying on topic, lol
I apologize.
This would seem to be on topic, to me, as this thread seems to be about how we define ourselves and our thoughts and actions.
When we define ourselves, make rules(sometimes arbitrarily) to govern, to direct our actions, we instinctually seek to stay within the guidelines we propose for ourselves.
To label something is to limit it.

That is what I sought to illustrate.
My apologies for straying.
 
l feed some homeless people because they live within the confines of what l expect, such as a ex-teacher who hit the skids, tried to work small jobs everyday, our store employees tend to help out, it was a collective mindset. Sadly he couldn't stop drinking and intervention was needed.
 
I apologize.
This would seem to be on topic, to me, as this thread seems to be about how we define ourselves and our thoughts and actions.
When we define ourselves, make rules(sometimes arbitrarily) to govern, to direct our actions, we instinctually seek to stay within the guidelines we propose for ourselves.
To label something is to limit it.

That is what I sought to illustrate.
My apologies for straying.

l was laughing when l posted that, lol
 
l feed some homeless people because they live within the confines of what l expect, such as a ex-teacher who hit the skids, tried to work small jobs everyday, our store employees tend to help out, it was a collective mindset. Sadly he couldn't stop drinking and intervention was needed.
For me, those circumstances don't indicate a choice between giving and not giving, but is instead an indicator of skilfulness in giving--- giving what is needed as opposed to what is wanted.

I imagine a world where, at the first instance of witnessing something that we gave being misused or squandered, we arbitrarily make the decision to never give another thing.

Wow.

Yet common.
 
We are witness to where that line of reasoning takes us.

So...
Why do we feel this drive to define ourselves, concommittantly limiting ourselves?

I blame Descartes.

You only limit yourself if you're not flexible.

Moving between world's,the individual,social,ephemereal,eternal.

And the defining is a group thing,not individual.

It started pre-monkey.
Descartes came along.
Shopping was invented.
Facebook.
Everybody got depressed.
Everybody died.

The upgraded vac bot,imbued with consciousness, model sidd851 cleans up the mess.
 
I blame Descartes.

You only limit yourself if you're not flexible.

Moving between world's,the individual,social,ephemereal,eternal.

And the defining is a group thing,not individual.

It started pre-monkey.
Descartes came along.
Shopping was invented.
Facebook.
Everybody got depressed.
Everybody died.

The upgraded vac bot,imbued with consciousness, model sidd851 cleans up the mess.

The defining group thing plays a role in everthing - Facebook, etc. etc.......
 
Introverts require more alone time than extroverts. They also can become fatigued by social interaction, whereas, extroverts can be stimulated by social interaction.

Everyone needs social time and alone time (except for hermits). The difference is the degree.

that's pretty much what I said.
 
that's pretty much what I said.

"both introverts and extroverts want to be social. they just do so at different frequencies. one prefers one on one while the other prefers crowds."

I took this to mean that introverts prefer one on one socializing, whereas, extroverts prefer group socializing. I disagree. I think introverts and extroverts have preferences for each type of socializing, but introverts prefer each type less often than extroverts. However, socially anxious people do prefer one to one or small groups.

I didn't see where you made the point that introverts require more alone time.
 
I apologize.
This would seem to be on topic, to me, as this thread seems to be about how we define ourselves and our thoughts and actions.
When we define ourselves, make rules(sometimes arbitrarily) to govern, to direct our actions, we instinctually seek to stay within the guidelines we propose for ourselves.
To label something is to limit it.

That is what I sought to illustrate.
My apologies for straying.

After reading the posts above, I was thinking, "Exactly! Labels are limitations!" and then I read this post and you said it outright!

*closes thread through sheer force of will in declaration of Sidd's victory over all things* :cool:
 

New Threads

Top Bottom