Understanding The Self

Metacognitive Reading Report 1

Before reading the article, I used to think that a person’s identity is stable. I was under the
impression that a person can grow, yes, but it is simply the flow in their identity. It is written and
destined to happen due to who and what they are; like fixed markers. After reading the article, I now
think that it is only seemingly stable. The mention of Plato’s analogy made me understand so. As the
identity is performing the same function, it is easy to feel and assume that our identity is stable. It is
easy to say that we are not exactly changing and dynamic. However, it is only just a feeling. Our identity
can change from one situation to another. Furthermore, before reading the article, I used to think that
the term “self” simply refers to who you are. This is somehow true, but I never had a chance to look into
the deeper aspect of it. I would also like to admit that I used to think that the deeper meanings and
explanation regarding the self are not worth understanding. This is mostly because of my low self-
esteem and how I couldn’t bring myself to connect and understand who I was as I didn’t think that I am
someone interesting. However, after reading the article, I now understand the point of those deeper
meanings. Alongside that, I understand the need for them. The self, in a more specific manner, includes
both the person who thinks and the object of thinking. Understanding the self like this helps in
understanding who you are, as when I read this, it made me feel aware of myself and what I do. It may
seem too deep, but for someone who rarely exerted effort in himself, it is a huge step. Lastly, before
reading the article, I used to think that caring about other people’s opinion are only brought by
insecurities and the need to please. After reading the article, I now think that there is more to it. People
reflect from other people’s perspective and evaluate themselves through it. It can be due to insecurities,
but it can also be because you are trying to understand who you are from another set of eyes. I find this
learning valuable as it I used to think of myself negatively for caring too much about what others think. I
always associate it with insecurity, but now, I will be able to get a healthy perspective and basis for
others’ views. I can use it not to please them, but to improve and learn about myself.
On the other hand, the things that I learned were also accompanied by things that were unclear
to me. To start, I read that there is not a single me but there is actually multiple me's. It should be
considered not as multiple selves, but as structuring self-concepts. It was also said that having multiple
personalities is when one is firmly separating oneself into truly different entities, and it is considered as
a mental illness. I am familiar with this concept, but the barrier that separates the mental illness to the
structuring self-concepts was unclear to me. I do know that proper diagnosis is the best answer to this
issue, but it would have been valuable to get a basic explanation about it for those who do not have the
luxury to ask a professional’s opinion. It seemed, based on the reading, that it is normal for an identity
to change in every situation. If a moment can produce a totally different identity, it is unclear to me how
that is considered as a structuring self-concept and not a mental illness as the latter was barely
mentioned and explained. Even if the identity wasn’t extremely separated from other identities,
wouldn’t it trigger the mental illness or confuse a person? Furthermore, I also do not understand
something about how thinking and action are influenced by what comes to mind and what feels relevant
in the moment. I get the literal and general concept of the thought, but as I did not read anything about
it being chaotic due to how it can repeatedly change, it is unclear how it is not considered as an issue
that can make it hard to understand a person’s identity without analyzing and understanding their
pattern and responses to situations. For the last thing that confused me, it was stated that men were
predicted to be more likely to define the self as independent from contexts and relationships, while
women were predicted to be the ones that were more likely to define the self as embedded in contexts
and relationships. It is unclear to me what the root is for this prediction or understanding and why it
seemed normal, as what if there were other factors that contributed to this, such as gender roles,
parenting styles, and expectations? I believe that an explanation on how their identities came to be and
not relying on their gender alone for an explanation would clear things up.
To end this report, there are a few questions that I would like to ask about the reading. The first
one is related to my last point in the previous paragraph: “Are identities brought by gender or gender
roles acceptable and not forced?” This aims to know how the world or professionals view this situation.
It was brought by the absence of further information and a deeper look as to why men are predicted to
separate their self from context and relationships while women are the opposite. The next question is,
“If multiple identities occur based in multiple situations, then wouldn’t it be unattainable to fully
understand and know someone?” I thought of this as I noticed that multiple situations can bring a totally
different person, but it was not mentioned whether this poses as a challenge in predicting someone’s
actions or their identity. My last question is based on how the reading said that people think dynamically
and they are responsive to whatever their immediate or near environment is; “Isn’t it complicated to
completely associate and categorize identity with the self when it bases on the environment and
situations?” Of course, I am aware that identities also base on the person, and that said person plays a
huge role in deciding what identity comes out. However, it was not stated if identity is complicated in
the sense that it, also, basically relies on external factors. It can happen that external factors have more
effect than the internal factors, such as mindset and experiences, within the person. What happens
then? What do you call that situation? It would be very interesting and exciting to have these questions
answered as it would bring extra knowledge and understanding about the topic.