Who are you really? Who are you at your best?

Dear Ralph,
It is horrible of you to have presented us with such questions, as at least the first is only answerable posthumously. For any person to be able to judge who they truly are and correctly portray that to you or anyone else using the media of a formal essay is completely impossible, as at any moment who that person is may be drastically different than who that person was mere moments previous. It is only by reviewing the entirety of a life, and every single moment and action within it that we may even begin to identify patterns and trends in that person’s behavior, and then, the seven to ten pages having been written, it would be necessary for that person to be extinguished to prevent any future actions from negating the findings of the laborious examination of the compilation of that life. To even begin to assess a person’s life based on what they experience in a ten-week period is both presumptuous and irresponsible.
That having been said, the following is a severely under-educated, scantily founded theory of my personality, its structure and resolution, up to this moment.

Respectfully and Introspectively yours,
E. Margret Gliozzo






Superhero Identities



In addressing the questions “who are you really” and “who are you at your best,” the suggestion has been made that these two states are parallel, or even the same. It is understandable how this argument could be made, as it is tempting to claim that at we are, in every action that we take, true to our nature, and thus completely and totally our selves. This, however, is a very confined way of intellectualizing life. The idea that at every moment in our lives we are “at our best” does not sit well with me. To even attempt to say that we are at our best when we are eating, procrastinating, or performing other mindless tasks seems absurd. It seems “best” should be a term reserved for something much more fulfilling than the drone of every day life.

Many of the greatest psychological scientists of our time have felt similarly that we cannot possibly be always at our best. From the theories of Humanistic Psychology, for example, we get the spectrum of functionality, upon which we slip smoothly up and down like so many pistons. This spectrum is aptly named, for in addition to indicating the levels of possible threat to out mental health, it also indicates how well we are able to perform the tasks of our daily lives. Those lower on the functionality scale are more likely to be distracted, and not perform to the best of their ability. To be at the high end of the scale is to gain concentration, trust, creativity, self-control, and to truly be “at our best.”

Carl Rogers tells us that to get to a point on the spectrum where we are more fully functional, we need to be presented with three human conditions that allow us to observe our consciousness from an objective standpoint. These conditions are genuineness, unconditional positive regard, and empathy. The presence of these traits is helpful for a person to realize that he or she is not alone in having the feelings that arise, and portray to both the person providing these conditions, and to the person being provided these conditions that all humans are more alike than they may realize individually. This, in turn, leads us to be less ego-centered, and make us more acceptant of ourselves and of others.

“... As he finds someone else listening acceptantly to his feelings, [the client] little by little becomes able to listen to himself... While he is learning to listen to himself he also becomes more acceptant of himself... As these changes occur, as he becomes more self-aware, more self-acceptant, less defensive and more open, he finds that he is at last free to change and grow in the directions natural to the human organism... He becomes less defensive, and hence more open to his experience of himself and of others... He perceives other individuals with more realism and more acceptance... The more the client perceives the therapist as real or genuine, as empathic, as having an unconditional regard for him, the more the client will move away from a static, fixed, unfeeling, impersonal type of functioning, and the more he will move toward a way of functioning marked by a fluid, changing, acceptant experiencing of differentiated personal feelings.”
(Rogers, 1961, What We Know About Psychotherapy)

It is because of the distinction made by Rogers and similarly recognized psychologists that I believe that who I am really is not at all who I am at my best. When attempting to discern my “true” identity from my “best” identity, I find that the former is much more needs based, while the latter is able to better empathize with others, and assuage their suffering, because my own is small to non-existent. Abraham Maslow intellectualized this as a pyramid of deficiency needs. At the base of the pyramid, holding the most importance, are the physiological needs, such as sleep and sustenance. Ascending the pyramid, with increasing novelty, we find safety, affiliation, and esteem. At the very top of the pyramid, available only to those who for the moment have fulfilled all other needs, we reach self-actualization. Maslow believed strongly in freedom of choice, and that we may choose not to fulfill the deficiency needs, but also quite adamantly believed that without this fulfillment we would be incapable of reaching self-actualization. He also believed that if we so chose to ignore them they would not simply disappear, but would be ever present in our minds until we fulfilled them. My “best” personality resides in and around the ultimate level of self-actualization, and I am allowed to be passionate, compassionate, loving, supportive, patient, and creative because I have no urgent need to care for myself. I am also more capable of having what Maslow called “peak experiences,” and described as “a transient moment of self-actualization.”

“The term ‘peak experiences’ is a generalization for the best moments of the human being, for the happiest moments of life, for experiences of ecstasy, rapture, bliss, of the greatest joy.”
(Maslow, 1971, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)

These moments, rare and wonderful as they are, separate the “true” self from the “best” self. While it is held true that when I’m at my best I can self-actualize, the converse is also true in that when I’m self-actualizing I am in fact at my best.
My “true” identity, however, pertains more to how I respond to the presence of my own deficiency needs. It is seen in my reaction to being so deficient, and concerns itself solely with the correction of these deficiencies. I hold it to be self-evident that who I am at my best is not who I am really simply because I am capable of making the distinction. Also indicative of separate selves is the fact that my moods change depending on which of my needs is presently active, making my ability to deal with the occurrences around me fluctuate.

Maslow, intelligent as he was, made a specific distinction between two basic kinds of psychology: deficiency psychology and being psychology. This indicates that he realized a constant struggle with a person’s hierarchy of needs was no way to live, and he placed hierarchal and real living in two different categories, firmly separating the “true” and “best” self concepts. In regards to the different behaviors, Maslow tells us there is a distinction between addressing deficiency needs (those directly related to the aforementioned pyramid) and growth needs, which motivate people beyond the lower level needs. When people attempt to address their growth needs it is taken positively, as indication that they desire a facet of life that is beyond simply satisfactory. It signifies that even though they could rest and be satisfied, they desire still greater improvement and growth. This he described as a need for transcendence, or the need to feel as if part of a larger situation. While in this mentality, it is easy to become more helpful and caring to others, viewing them as also part of the larger collective. This leads to a less individualistic mentality, as well as increased creative capacity.

Sigmund Freud and James Bugental would argue that our consciousness is a series of impulses and our personality is created by the actions we take to try to quell those impulses. Freud supplies us with the idea that we are fueled by sex and aggression, that we have no choice as to the nature of our “primitive ancient instincts,” but that we simply try to steer them. Bugental then tells us that it is truly the intended actions, not clothes, which make the man, but that the impulse to take these actions arises from unconscious impulses. Thus, for Bugental and Freud our “true” self is only concerned with satisfying our own needs, and appears much like the id of Freudian theory. Recalling my first assessment of my own “true” self, I notice it is full of id-like qualities, such as impulsivity, fear, and a primary concern with myself. My assessment of my “best” self, however, seems much more like an ego-ideal, and is marked by compassion, empathy, concern for others, potency, and competence.

Even in American pop culture we see a battle between the fully functional, “best” self, and the more inhibited “true” self. The most famed of all DC Comics characters is a man who at his best is capable of flight, incredible strength, unparalleled speed, amazing hearing, and a battery of enhanced ocular abilities. In every day life, however, he is a largely passive, introverted individual, with a conservatively “mild-mannered” temperament.

As Superman, the character is often seen saving New Yorkers from multiple forms of peril. He is confident, he is keenly interested in the welfare of others, he accepts himself for who he is, and accepts others for who they are, he controls himself, and answers to no one, he has an enhanced perception of reality, and he is incredibly spontaneous, appearing from nowhere to save the day.

As Clark Kent, however, the character is constantly befuddled at work, unable to focus. He is rarely present in reality, but is instead in his own world. He submits to others’ requests, and lives his life by the book. Not only is he not involved in others’ lives at all, spending most of his time working alone, he seems incapable of expressing himself to others. It is indisputable that Kent’s deficiency needs are not fulfilled. Though I’m sure he is well rested and well fed, and feels safe in knowing he is impenetrable, it seems his affiliation needs are not completely met. With the object of his affection, Lois Lane, Kent cannot seem to find the words to express how he feels, and so resolutely she is not interested in him (she instead prefers the suave, confidence of the courageous Superman). Because of this disability, Kent lives void of both affiliation and esteem, and can only be truly at his best when he is Superman, doing what he does best: saving the world.

In his natural state, we see that Kent is at his best, and that he must don normal human clothing to become his “true” self, which seems backwards. Approached from another perspective, however, we are able to theorize that the “best” state is the true self, and who we are “really” is referring to the overly critical superego construction we inflict upon ourselves. By this standard, I may say with confidence that I am a passionate, compassionate, caring, loving, supportive, understanding, empathetic, patient, competent person. I am not truly overly analytical, frightened of the socially drastic consequences of confrontation, or desperate for direction, as I once believed. I realize now that what I had believed to be my “true” self was a misconception of what I believed society to expect of me.

I am perfectly aware that I am not in any way original or individual in these misconceptions. I firmly believe in the idea that Freud, Bugental, Maslow, and Rogers (together as a group, or even individually) could have described me more perfectly than I ever could or have, indicating that they were all intelligent men, and knew a relatively large amount about what they were talking about. I am in no way as adept at describing the psychology of an entire human being as they are, and especially not at conveying my own personality. I have simply borrowed their terminology in an attempt to portray an idea; I have not made any revelations that will change the future of psychology. As new as I am to the terminology and ideology, I know it isn’t all exactly correct, and I may not be using the ideas or words for their original purpose, but it portrays the general idea of how I have come to consider myself quite nicely, and I truly appreciate that they have set out these parameters for me to compare myself to, if only to discover that I disagree with them.