personality
schwaja3@wfu.edu
Tue, 6 Feb 96 23:36:15 -0500
All interaction is give and take...so I guess it is only fair to try to respond
to a question before I ask one...
Jerry Blaz asked how effective our manipulation of symbols is in light
of the fact that although we try to present a certain self to others this
presentation is not very successful. We see ourselves differently than others
see us. Others see us differently than we try to present our "self." Is our
goal to reconcile the "I" and the "me" into a consistent thing or is our goal to
reconcile how we try to present our "self" and how it is received? As much as I
would like to think that there is the possibility of a unified self (that is
that our inner self is what we present to the actors we encounter) I don't think
this is a possibility. Each person's perspective is unique. This is what is
truly limiting (although the limitations of language don't help either).
Everyone has different personal goals in an interaction. Even if there are
shared goals, the preferred means of achieving this goal may vary. The only way
to remedy the inconsistencies (that I can think of) would be to be virtual
robots where everyone shared the exact same thought process, goals, means etc.
(I hope I understood the question correctly or I just went off on a major
tangent)
As for my question...Charon (and it seems most symbolic interactionists)
discount personality as having anything to do with anything. Is there such a
thing as "personality?" If not, what accounts for the decisions we make? I
understand that social interaction accounts for most decisions that lead to
action, but what about preferences, such as if I prefer the color purple to
green or if I like Chris better than Bob? How do we choose our reference groups
(other than family)?