Anyone else dealing with an impaired sense of 'self'?

[qb]

My therapist noticed that I tend to define myself almost entirely through my interactions with others.

He said "Imagine everyone else is gone from your life. What's left?

I thought, and replied "Not much."

I am now working to find out who I am independent of others. My first assignment is to write down 16 defining qualities of qb.

[Odin2005]

1. That seems to be an Extrovert vs. Introvert thing.

The terms as originally defined by Carl Jung referred to assimilating one's self to the outside world and protecting the self from the outside world respectively. So, for example, what Jung called the "Extroverted Feeling" personality would be prone to assimilating one's self into one's network of social relationships.

It makes one think how important our relationships are in our sense of self.

[InkAddict]

2. More like impaired by identity "theft"

literal/figurative.

[elleng]

3. Like,

I enjoy . . . .

I don't care for . . .

I would like to . . .

Best of luck.

:hi:

[mopinko]

4. that's some tough homework

something that i am definitely dealing with myself. my kids are getting older, it is low tide for electoral stuff, i have had enough of my artists' co-op. if only i could get the parrots and the dogs to cooperate in opening cans, i could be free. which would suck.

[mdmc]

5. I am a member of DU

moveon
ect..

[qb]

6. Thank you all. Your input is helpful.

I need to remember that my self isn't necessarily lacking or absent... I've just had trouble recognizing or identifying it. The "lack of self" idea really shook me up.

[woo me with science]

7. Honestly, I'm not sure what the point of this observation is....

It seems almost to be a pathologizing of something that is normal. People don't live in isolation from others, so your self is of course intimately entwined with the relationships you have.

We are all different to some extent based on the people who surround us. This sort of observation by therapists is a pet peeve of mine, because it suggests to people that they are abnormal, when nothing could be further from the truth. I have heard similar arguments from quacks trying to convince people that they have abnormally split "selves" or dissociated identities (not saying that your therapist is a quack...just commenting on why this particular observation hits me the wrong way). The truth is that we all define ourselves, and we all shift, in relation to others. The phenomenon is a reflection of the complexity of our selves and of our capacity for empathy and adaptation to other human creatures. We NEED other human creatures....Look at the studies of monkeys reared in isolation. We need each other, and of course we develop our selves in relation to one another. It does not mean that anything is wrong with you, but merely that you are human and complex and responsive.

There is nothing wrong with spending time trying to identify your personal interests, likes, desires, etc. These things help you identify what is unique about yourself and help you to seek out activities and other people you will enjoy. But to observe that your sense of self is linked to others seems to me like observing that the sky is blue. And I wonder what the point of pathologizing that would be.

[qb]

8. The point is to identify what motivates me to act impulsively.

I appreciate your observation about pathologizing human needs. It reminds me to think critically about what my therapist tells me. My problem is not that I have these needs, but that I feel and act on them excessively to the point that they adversely affect my life and relationships. My intent is not to diminish my links to others but to feel more comfortable by myself. Pathologizing my excesses helps me focus on this goal.

[woo me with science]

9. I am glad

that you heard my comment in the spirit in which it was intended. I understand better now what you are saying, I think. I am glad you are not seeing your connectedness as a pathology...The goal sounds like a healthy one. :)