᠇
Every non-specific individual (a 'people-in-general' term, but not EVERYou) begins to compile their personality as an adolescent when they emulate certain traits and choose not to emulate others. By early adulthood, those who were once constantly-bullied have adopted a completely different demeanor, future outlook, and baseline empathy than those who were once consistently-adored.
Do you recognize your own persona? Maybe it's easier to describe the personality of someone other than yourself? When considering the collection of behaviors considered relevant-enough to include—when briefly describing the "normal behavior" of someone to someone else—there's no pocket sized rule-book to act as a guide.
Although it is uncontroversial to state everyone "has" a personality, it's less acceptable to allege that everyone possesses a persona (as I'm doing here). Jungian's consider the persona a false façade or mask, presented to the external world as a defense mechanism or engaged to manipulate others. In the psychologist's belief-system, "healthy" individuals have no (need for) personae. That was never true.
Some evidence: on-duty/work persona; online persona; frat-boy/rorty-gal personae; authority's watching persona; circle-of-trust persona; seductive persona; guardian-parent persona; team-member persona; implied-threat persona; dissociated persona; aloof persona; grand-master persona; sage persona; ingénue persona [¡this's but a mere fraction!].
Someone you only met briefly, once, may have successfully displayed a persona which would be considered drastically at-odds with the default persona their friends-and-family recognize. Another person may have already spent thousands of hours curating "their image" and, consequently, they are careful to present the same façade to everyone (or, at least, everyone they are willing to introduce you to). Your persona wears your costume, quotes from your script, displays your approved characteristics, and performs the role of "you" in your external every-day routine.
There are other personae on your tool-belt and
still others you store on a back shelf. A common back-shelf
persona: Dragging your carry-on behind you, boarding pass in hand,
mental checklist ruminating: did I takeout all liquids over 3oz? You
take out your authority is watching persona. Your heart begins to
race. "take your driver's license out of ..." "Yes, ma'am." comes
the reply from your persona.
During their growing phase, some personae receive constant-criticism, consistent-disdain, or systemic-abuse. Accordingly, some of these burgeoning personalities decide to reinforce certain characteristics or cherished behaviors into convictions. And, (in an attempt to thwart these real or supposed, ever-looming, adversaries) these personae may resolve to permanently portray with absolute certainty that their convictions are righteously true.
In the persona that is adamant about loudly trumpeting their strong convictions, either they don't realize their act of fanatically pretending to possess unquestioning certainty paints them into a corner, or they are incapable of placing significance on the ability to recognize the difference between rational and irrational behavior.
The ability to recognize sanity is innate; in the sane.
If you began what was presumed (at-the-time) would be a routine exchange of pleasantries with someone at a bus stop. But came to realize that this someone, you were - now - addressing, was definitely not in possession of any societal guardrails or norms (relating to shame, decency, propriety, violence, or personal autonomy) and then—as the sinking feeling along your nape begins to chill-trickle: ¿how did my intuition fail to recognize a feral human animal from a distance?—this someone reveals that:
They are mentally-disabled and,
therefore, not able to recognize the society of laws with whom they are a member. They are incapable
of understanding abstract concepts (like reading).
Their persona chose, years ago, to believe they are not a member of the
society surrounding them. They're adamant that, "...your spurious
laws don't apply to sovereign people like me."
Do you draw a distinction?
Is it a distinction in the empathy you imagine feeling for these someones?
Is there a distinction in incarceration / hospitalization they deserve (assuming the same crime)?
If no distinction: how does "intent" factor-in to your discernment?
Can you switch "roles" and picture predator's POV and then prey POV and back? Again?
Do you recognize a preference?
Why do you prefer?
There are those who intentionally hold no convictions. To the conviction-less, remaining aware of uncertainty indicates a versatile 'open-to-listening' persona. Being always open-to-agreement with those open-to-discussing any-and-all topics, which anyone else is equally open-to—requires active listening. Which requires asking questions. Which requires practicing asking questions.
Holding convictions is detrimental; no different than accepting any premise without first evaluating and questioning those who advocate for it. As a direct consequence of this foundational truth, many non-specific individuals (the conviction-less EVERYou is one exception) are wary of all questions. Or, too many questions. Or, complex theosophical questions.
For personas stocked with convictions, every query has the potential to expose their hollow value-systems and empty characters. Those filled with various convictions are aware that they can never provide complete answers relating to why they behave the way their convictions instruct them to behave. Also, all non-superficial conversations bring forward a substantial risk in alienating or damaging their relationship (or some as-yet-undetermined potential future relationship).
A friend once told me this hypothetical (which is quite relevant):
"If I had been good-friends with OJ Simpson in the 1990s, and he took me aside and said, "I just snapped when I saw them together and went fuckin crazy!" I'd have said, "Cool, wanna go golfing?" But if he took me aside and said, "I sure hope they catch whoever did it." I couldn't have remained friends with him." - fan-fuckin-tastic quote of R.P.B.
If people don't want to discover who their friends and family members truly are, because they're afraid to learn they stormed the capitol on Jan 6th, or refused mask wearing, or (flipping the script) want Trump sentenced, or Clarence Thomas impeached, is it because their personas are burdened with convictions they're incapable of questioning?
• Is it possible to have simple opinions, which seem grounded in rational reasons, but at-the-same-time, actually be really open to being convinced they (you) were wrong •
• The real measure of a person is: ¿How willing are they (you) to say, "This is my current opinion on this matter, but I'm so eager to learn something new (which I can get fully behind!) that I'll seriously consider adopting your opinion as my own, but first, I need to take measure of your current grasp on reality •
• Tell me about your current persona •
• Explain one of your convictions •
a long :
