{"id":1141,"date":"2024-11-15T19:08:35","date_gmt":"2024-11-15T19:08:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/?page_id=1141"},"modified":"2024-11-15T21:44:52","modified_gmt":"2024-11-15T21:44:52","slug":"a-foundational-article","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/a-foundational-article\/","title":{"rendered":"Differentiating the\u00a0I\u00a0from the\u00a0ME\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n

by Jerald R. Forster\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(This draft was published in the 2009 book, Reflections in Personal Construct Theory<\/em>, edited by\u00a0 Richard J. Butler, Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.)\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jerald Forster is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, in Seattle,  Washington, USA. He joined the faculty at that university as a counselor educator in  1966. Most of his teaching, research and writing have been focused on ways of  facilitating the articulation of self-identity. He developed instruments and methods for  articulating personal goals, strengths, and career plans. He currently directs the  Dependable Strengths Project at the University of Washington.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was 12:31 a.m., February 24, 2008, and I had been lying in bed half awake. My  first awareness in my waking state was of a sound. The sound was punctuated by short  periods of silences. As my cognitive processes started kicking in, I had a desire to make  sense of the experience. I recognized the sound as coming from a low-flying airliner.  What I could not explain was the short silences between the noises. I quickly came up  with a possible explanation. Evidently, some type of interruption in the sound waves  reaching my ears caused the silent periods. I hypothesized that the interruptions were  caused by periodic blockages of the waves as they bounced off of the ground in their  journey to my ears; I surmised that these blockages were probably caused by the rows  of houses lined up on streets parallel to our street. All of this experiencing took place in  less than ten seconds.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

During this time, I realized I had never noticed an intermittent sound quite like  that particular sound before this moment. During the next few seconds my attention  focused on the use of this experience as a key example for this chapter. I conceived of  the idea that this experience might be a vivid example of what I meant by the I <\/em>concept,  one of the two concepts being differentiated in this chapter. This was my I <\/em>experiencing  what was happening in my environment. It was my I <\/em>construing what was happening. It  was I <\/em>doing something.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Soon after I formulated this I <\/em>example, I started to think about a possible example  from my personal life that would demonstrate the other concept, the ME<\/em>. Several came  to mind, including the descriptive statement about Jerald R. Forster at the beginning of  this chapter. I wrote those words several months ago to describe myself to the readers  of this chapter. Those words describe me as an object, somewhat as I might describe  some other object, if it were a person. The description was written for other people, and  it communicates some of what I want others to know about me. That description  presents one version of my self-identity. What would the description have been like if I  had only intended it for myself? My own personal description of myself would be my  ME<\/em>. As I pursue the concept of ME <\/em>more fully below. I will introduce a metaphor based  on a feedback loop to describe my ME <\/em>as a creation or a construction by my I<\/em>. I will also offer a theoretical system wherein the ME <\/em>influences the I<\/em>\u2019s subsequent construction of  the ME<\/em>, thereby influencing the construction of a later version of the I<\/em>\u2019s ME<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This introduction provides a glimpse of my purpose for writing this chapter. I will  attempt to differentiate between my I <\/em>and my ME<\/em>, two perspectives on myself. I will also  build a case for the way this differentiation could help you be a more adaptable person  who does not get stuck in a self-identity that overuses your ME<\/em>-based characterization  of your I<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The experiencing <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mead (1934) conceptualized the I<\/em>-self to be the self as the subject<\/em>, or the agent  who is experiencing and responding to stimuli. The potential stimuli available for  experiencing are highly diverse. Many of these stimuli are attended to and processed by  the operations of the brain\u2019s neocortex. Some of the stimuli are construed, or interpreted  in a process of making meaning. In terms of cognitive processing, it could be said that  part of your infantile I<\/em>-self processing is similar to that of lower animals, more focused  on sensed external stimuli and not much mediated by symbols and language. As your I<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

self develops, its processing becomes more complex and symbolic language comes  into play. Even though symbols and abstract concepts come to be used in the  processing, much of this aspect of your self still operates without extensive use of  language.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Personal constructs form and develop to serve as templates for recognizing  patterns in the stimuli, which help to create meanings. Memories of meaningful  experiences are stored, and the labels attached to personal constructs help the I <\/em>retrieve those stored experiences. The organizing and remembering of these  experiences and their sequencing are greatly enhanced when they are strung together  in a narrative. This aspect of the self, which I am calling I<\/em>, is the doer. The I <\/em>is  experiencing. It is deciding, it is behaving \/ acting, and it is construing. When I was  hearing the airliner during the event described in the Introduction, I was experiencing,  construing and deciding. I wasn\u2019t very aware of myself during this process; I was  focused on what was happening. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong>is a process <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The I <\/em>can be thought of as a process, rather than an entity or a physical object.  This particular process is enabled by the simple functioning brain. However, it would be  overly simple to equate it with the brain. The process enables awareness to occur within  the brain. This awareness permits associations, connections and the making of  meaning. The brain might be thought of as a processor, the vehicle for the constantly changing process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The complex processing, which is the essence of the I<\/em>, might also be conceived  of as a number of sub-processes that enable pattern recognition and interpretation. It  could be said that personal constructs form and are used as the I<\/em>-processes take place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The I <\/em>is the present tense of the experiential process<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This brain-enabled process is taking place as a continuous stream of  consciousness focused at the present moment. Theoretically, the ideal I <\/em>would always  be focused on what is being experienced in the now<\/em>. In real life, the I <\/em>is often focused  on past experiences and future possibilities. When the I<\/em>\u2019s awareness is focused on a  past experience or an anticipated experience, that transported awareness has been  enabled by a sub-process that allows the attention to be focused on a different time  frame than the present. When thinking of a past event, the recalled experience is at the  center of my attention. Similarly, a possible future event can be imagined or  constructed, and my current thoughts are projected into the future. The acuteness of  awareness is compromised or clouded during these transported experiences. Being in  the present, the past and the future all have their purposes and advantages. But a  person who was always focused on the present could not benefit from experience, and  a person who could not focus on the future could not plan.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I recall my experiences described in the introduction of this chapter, I can  recall some of what I experienced the first time I heard that airliner passing over.  Although fourteen hours have passed since I first heard those punctuated noises, I can  remember some of what it was like. The experience is less vivid and less real, yet I do  have some of the sensations and many of the thoughts I had when I tried to make  sense of what had happened the first time I experienced the event. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me add that I think of mindfulness as meta-cognitive awareness of whatever I  am experiencing in the moment, or in the present. I can be mindful when I am planning  for the future or remembering the past, if I am aware that my planning and my  remembering are occurring right now. When I am mindful, I am aware of both the  content and the process of my thinking. Further exploration of the tense of awareness  can be found in the literature on the concept of mindfulness (Kabat-zin1994). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Objectified <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mead conceptualized the ME-<\/em>self to be the self as the object<\/em>, an object that is  observed by the I<\/em>, along with a large number of other objects also being observed by  the I<\/em>. Perhaps the use of the verb observed <\/em>oversimplifies the process that is taking  place when the ME <\/em>has the attention of the I<\/em>. What may be happening is that the aspect  of the self called the ME <\/em>has entered the awareness of the I <\/em>that is experiencing what is  happening in its external and internal environment. At first the ME-self <\/em>might simply be  recognized as another object, which are like those objects known as persons. The M<\/em>E  might be compared with other people interacting with the I-self<\/em>. Eventually, that ME <\/em>becomes a very special object, because the I <\/em>comes to recognize a complex and  symbiotic connection to that object.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To consider a series of developmental activities of a representative child who is  forming and elaborating his ME<\/em>, let us follow Tommy through his early years. After  several months of being called Tommy, this child looks into a mirror and says \u2018that\u2019s  Tommy\u2019. Later, Tommy uses the pronoun Me <\/em>to describe the object in the mirror.  Somewhere during this period of development Tommy has learned to associate the  sound of the word Tommy <\/em>to the object he saw in the mirror. Later, he will read the word  Tommy <\/em>and know that the word represents the body he saw in the mirror so many  times. Like most objects that become meaningful to the observing I<\/em>, the ME<\/em>-self will  come to have a large number of special meanings, such as \u2018sweet boy\u2019 and \u2018bad boy\u2019.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the earlier stages of a person\u2019s development, there are simple, direct  associations between the object, the ME<\/em>, and evaluative words or actions expressed by  another person. Eventually, the personal constructs formed and employed by the I<\/em>-self,  are used to describe ME <\/em>and provide a budding self-identity. Tommy has come to use a  pole of the construct sweet v bad <\/em>to characterize himself and others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although I have written about the ME <\/em>as a fairly simple, unitary concept or  symbol, I could have described the ME <\/em>as a cluster of MEs. <\/em>James (1890) did this when  he proposed various MEs<\/em>, including the Social ME<\/em>, the Spiritual ME<\/em>, and several other  MEs<\/em>. However, in the theorizing I will next propose, it will be easier to treat the ME <\/em>as a  unitary unit or concept. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

My <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong>construes my body and constructs my <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an earlier section, I described the I <\/em>as a process wherein many connections  are made among stimuli, and many relationships are recognized. These processes  might be called construing, or at least include construing. Kelly (1955) defined  construing as a process of interpretation. The observed objects and other stimuli are  being construed. I assume that my physical body was one of the early objects selected  by my evolving I <\/em>for construing. After all, that body is always in close proximity to the  experiencing-I<\/em>, and there are ample opportunities for the I <\/em>to be aware of the body. So,  my experiencing and construing-I <\/em>probably used newly-developed personal constructs  to construct my ME<\/em>. This developing construction process continued to be elaborated  as new personal constructs evolved during subsequent reiterations of the construal  process. In effect, my I <\/em>constructed my ME<\/em>, using my physical body as its original  stimulus.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The constructed ME <\/em>may come to serve as a representative of the I<\/em>, since the I <\/em>is  aware of the close connection between the body and its processing operation.  Unfortunately, the I <\/em>can attribute too much realness to its ME <\/em>construction. This  attribution process has been called reification <\/em>and the process could restrict the further  development or elaboration of the I<\/em>. If the I <\/em>considers its current version of ME <\/em>to be  sufficiently representative of the I<\/em>, it may not seek further elaborations of its current  construction. As the I <\/em>seeks an identity, it may adopt the current ME <\/em>as its primary  identity, and that ME <\/em>is likely to be a very limited version of the I<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider the example of one version of my ME<\/em>, that I identified in the  introduction to this chapter. A good deal of that identity is now out of date. I have moved  on in my career and I do not often educate counselors. My affiliation with the University  of Washington has changed, and I do not represent that university as much as I now  represent some other institutions of higher learning. Yet, I might still be stuck in that  former identity, and it might confuse people who want to implement some joint ventures.  Maybe it is time to give up that part of my identity. Maybe I could gain new awareness  and be freed of some of my restrictive views of reality. Am I stuck in old roles and old  perspectives because I attribute too much realness or validity to the constructed ME <\/em>that has not been revised very much during the passing years?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relationship between the <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong>and the <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have elaborated two concepts that are useful for explaining the development  and functioning of the self. When doing that, I did not mean to imply that these two  concepts are two separate components of the self. I am proposing that these two  concepts are so intertwined and related that they cannot be considered separately.  Since the I <\/em>has been depicted as the creator of the ME<\/em>, the I <\/em>is obviously the more  important concept to consider. However, the ME <\/em>can be objectified and described to  others, so it provides the most open window to self-characterization. After all, the ME <\/em>does play an important role in the whole processing system of the self. As I will propose  in the next section, the ME <\/em>provides feedback in the self-system that facilitates the  elaboration and development of the I<\/em>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The feedback loop between the <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong>and the <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my initial attempt to describe the relationship between the I <\/em>and the ME<\/em>, I used  the simple metaphor of a person looking at a mirror and seeing his or her physical  image. The person who is looking is the I <\/em>and the image in the mirror is the ME<\/em>, a  representation of the I<\/em>, as experienced by the I<\/em>. The actual relationship between the I <\/em>as  subject and the ME <\/em>as object is a much more complicated than what is suggested by  the mirror metaphor.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hofstadter (2007) proposes the feedback loop used in mechanical systems such  as flush toilets and thermostats, as a useful metaphor for explaining how the I <\/em>and ME <\/em>affect each other. In the case of flush toilets and thermostats, the larger system is kept  in balance by at least two subsystem components that provide feedback to each other  so that pre-established boundaries are not violated. When using this metaphor for  theorizing about the human self-system, Hofstadter develops a more complicated  feedback loop, called a strange loop<\/em>. He uses this metaphor to show how perceptions of  the ME <\/em>by the I <\/em>change the I, <\/em>which then changes the way the I <\/em>comes to perceive the  M<\/em>E during the next loop. So, the interaction between the I <\/em>and the ME <\/em>keeps changing  each other, causing each changed I <\/em>to observe new aspects of the previously observed  ME<\/em>, thereby creating a new ME <\/em>to be observed differently during the next round of the  loop. Using this metaphor, one can get a sense of the complexity of self-identity and  how it constantly develops during a process of elaboration and change.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When this feedback process is framed in the language of Personal Construct  Theory (PCT), the experiencing I <\/em>starts with a simple construct which is used to  differentiate the constructed, and yet observed, ME <\/em>from other people. But the newly  constructed ME <\/em>becomes elaborated and changed from the previous ME<\/em>, which might  well change the personal construct previously used to make the differentiation. When  this new version of the construct is used to differentiate the new ME <\/em>from others, a  different ME <\/em>is constructed, which, in turn, might influence the I<\/em>\u2019s next construction of  the newly-different ME<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Construing the self as the integration of the <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong>and the <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have proposed a model wherein the I <\/em>creates the ME <\/em>and is influenced by that  creation. While the experiencing and the construing of the I <\/em>are influenced by the ME<\/em>,  the I <\/em>is certainly more than the ME<\/em>. When I write about the self, I am really writing about  the I <\/em>and the ME <\/em>combined, because once the ME <\/em>is created, it changes the I <\/em>in such a  way that the initial, simple I <\/em>is a different process than was previously the case. Even  though the I <\/em>and ME <\/em>can never be clearly differentiated after they have been developed  together, I am hypothesizing that we still benefit from theorizing as if they were two  different processes.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, I think it is useful to think of the ME <\/em>as less of a process than the I<\/em>.  This is because images or symbols of the ME <\/em>have been constructed so that they can  be experienced as specific events. Specific events can be concretized or seen as being  more real or permanent than are processes. This is why the ME s<\/em>eems to be more real  than the I<\/em>, even though it is not. The I <\/em>is difficult to summarize or slow down, because it  is a process that involves continual changing. We like to be able to convert processes to  static units so that they are more like phenomena that can be sensed by our sensors.  Sensing is the way we become aware of most stimuli. That is why we often use the  phrase, I want to make sense of what is going on<\/em>, when we are faced with processes  and with abstractions of phenomena that seem ambiguous and often confusing.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can my <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong>intentionally change my <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong>? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I certainly hope that the answer to this question is yes. I think it is reasonable to  assume that you can change the ME<\/em>, if you accept the hypothesis that your ME <\/em>is a  construction. If something is constructed, you would think it could be re-constructed.  However, it is generally assumed that the system known as the limbic system influences  the motivations and the actions of humans and other animals. Although the ME <\/em>is  probably developed with processing enabled by the neocortex (of the neopallium), the  limbic system of the paleopallium (midbrain) may have a significant impact on the  development of the ME, <\/em>operating beneath the level of consciousness. If that is the  case, self-identity might be influenced by a brain system that is not affected by  interventions designed to change cognitive processing. I hope that research studies will  be devised and implemented to provide answers to the question raised in the title of this  section.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can a person construct a more positive <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong>? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I believe that the answer to this question is crucial to the cultural evolution of the  human species. I base this belief on my review of the theoretical and research literature,  most of which has been stimulated by the positive psychology movement (Forster  2005). Seligman (2002), known as the father of the movement, articulated a solid  rationale for encouraging authentic happiness, which is characterized by positive MEs<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the past fifteen years I collaborated with Bernard Haldane to create and  implement methods that help people articulate their strengths (Forster 2003). These  methods facilitate a process by which people recall positive experiences and then  articulate strengths they used during those experiences. I conducted research studies indicating that participation in this process resulted in significant increases in their  positive self-descriptions. These positive descriptions were indications of a more  positive ME <\/em>(Forster 1991). This research finding is similar to results of many other  studies wherein attempts are made to increase measures of self-esteem, feelings of  subjective well-being, and optimism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the model of elaboration suggested by the I\/ME feedback loop, I suggest  that the creation of more positive MEs <\/em>will eventually change the I<\/em>. Wright (2000) makes  a case that such changes are likely to further the cultural evolution of the human  species. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can I transcend beyond my awareness of my <\/strong>ME<\/em><\/strong>? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many people, often identified with the Buddhist traditions, have written about a  no-self <\/em>state of awareness. Anderson (1997) is particularly insightful and articulate  about this state of awareness which he calls liberation<\/em>. I have been intrigued by this  possibility and I engaged in Vipassana meditation practices with the hope that I might  achieve liberation. However, I seemed to lack the motivation to persist in my quest for  this very desirable state of being. Yet, I remain intrigued by the possibility. I think of that  state of awareness as a time when my I <\/em>has transcended beyond awareness of my ME<\/em>.  I doubt that I, or any human being, can achieve this liberating state of awareness for  very long, but even short periods would be heavenly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another way of transcending beyond the awareness of my ME <\/em>is to become very  focused upon some engaging activity that requires my total attention. I have recognized  some times in my life when I was so engaged in what I was doing that I paid little  attention to my self. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) has written a good deal about this process,  which he calls flow<\/em>. Incidentally, this type of engagement has been identified as one of  the three forms happiness (Seligman 2002). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benefits of differentiating the <\/strong>I <\/em><\/strong>from the <\/strong>ME <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The benefits of considering the concepts of I <\/em>and ME <\/em>include the possibility that  you will gain insights into ways you make sense of yourself. You might increase your  awareness of the ways you process your experiences. Actually, I can\u2019t speak to the  benefits you get from considering these two templates for looking at yourself. I can,  however, articulate some of the benefits I realized from thinking and writing about these  aspects of the self. I feel I benefited from becoming more aware of my own  constructions of my self-identity. I now seem to recognize these constructions as partial  depictions of my self, generated by my complex processing. I interpret these self constructions as less than real and less valid than the way I interpreted myself before I  started using the concepts of I <\/em>and ME<\/em>. This does not mean that I am more confused  about who I am, it means that I am less deluded about my ways of trying to make sense  of myself.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By conceiving of my self-identity as a tentative and hypothetical possibility, rather  than as the real thing, I feel less need to defend its validity to others and myself. You  may have noticed that I just spoke of defending myself to myself, as if I have two selves.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, I can experience myself as two selves. You can tell that other people have this  dual perspective when you analyze what they say. I have heard many assertions like: \u2018I  couldn\u2019t live with myself if I did that\u2019, and \u2018I feel sorry for myself\u2019. I hypothesize that this  sense of having two selves occurs because some of us do experience two aspects of  our processing. I am aware at a deeper level that I am processing what is going on,  while at the same time I am also the product or construction of that processing. After  articulating this model of an I <\/em>and a ME<\/em>, I began to understand why I might be feeling  like two selves.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me give a more specific situation when I benefited from this deeper  awareness of my processing. In April 2007, after months of weight loss, I received the  results of a biopsy informing me that cancer was found in my pancreas. My knowledge  of mortality probabilities for people with pancreatic cancer helped to activate a personal  construct of dying v living<\/em>, so that I started interpreting the processes of my body as  dying, rather than living. I started to think of my future existence in terms of months,  rather than years. But, somewhat to my surprise, I did not experience feelings of dread  or catastrophe.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upon further reflection, I became aware of the way I had started to construe my I self <\/em>as a current process that would cease to exist when my body and my brain stopped  its processing operation, an inevitable future event. This interpretation of my self as a  process gave me a sense of impermanence, freeing me from an earlier sense of being  a real object or a long-standing entity. This interpretation also enabled me to detach  from the sense of realness I had attributed to my MEs<\/em>, which were becoming past  images or snapshots of various past experiences, never again to be experienced as  they once were experienced. In a way, I had moved to an expectation of a temporary  self, which is on the way to awareness of a no-self <\/em>future. Instead of focusing on the  precious time I had available to me, I became aware of the gratitude I felt because of  the wonderful experiences and the unusual opportunities available to me in the past.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As it happened, my interpretation of myself as a dying person was reversed or at  least postponed, after extensive surgery. Analysis of the tissue removed indicated that I  had a less lethal cancer, called bile duct cancer. The whole experience enabled me to  re-construe my self-identity. As a result of these experiences, I came to interpret my  self-consciousness as less permanent and this realization was accompanied by feelings  of peacefulness and gratitude. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerns about what was left out <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have addressed only a few of the specific components comprising the complex  and multilayered topic of self-identity. I have focused on the aspect of the self that is  experiencing, construing, and taking action. This description of what is happening when  the processes called the I <\/em>are occurring, only identifies a few of the activities  encompassed by this mysterious process. I have also focused on one object of the I<\/em>\u2019s  construing, a construed product called the ME<\/em>. This \u2018product\u2019, which is some kind of  virtual creation, is constructed from abstract templates used to see patterns in  phenomena and processes. I tried to show how these two concepts relate to each other  and how the construal of the two, interacting as a system, elaborates the self.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

My exploration of how the I <\/em>constructs the ME <\/em>does not include the influence of  other people on the development of the self. It could easily be said that a person\u2019s  identity comes from relationships and interactions with other people. The topics of  cultural and societal influences are also very important. The impact of expectations,  goals and thinking about the future should be included in any comprehensive  explanations of the self-identification. Anticipations of events that might happen are the  guides for much of behavior and self-identity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although I have concerns about what I have left out, I also realize that I have run  out of time and space for saying more in this particular publication. I appreciate this  opportunity to articulate some of my reflections on my own processing about myself.  The experience of doing so has stretched my thinking so far that I felt, at times, almost  overwhelmed. But it leaves with me a strong desire to continue towards better  understanding of something that I feel is ultimately unknowable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

References <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anderson, W. T. (1997). The Future of the Self: Inventing the Postmodern Person.   New York: Penguin Putnam <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow. New York: Basic Books <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forster, J. R. (1991). Facilitating positive changes in self-constructions. Interna-  tional Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 4, 281\u2013292 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forster, J. R. (2003). Bernard Haldane was ahead of his time. Career Planning &   Adult Development Journal, 19, 28\u201338 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forster, J. R. (2005). A summary of selected positive psychology literature   supporting strengths-articulation. Paper presented at the 16th International   Congress of the Psychology of Personal Constructs, Columbus, OH, 19 July.   www.dependablestrengths.org <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hofstadter, D. (2007). I am a Strange Loop. New York: Basic Books James, W. (1890\/1950). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover  c15.indd 249 12\/15\/2008 6:26:09 PM <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kabat-zin, J. (1994). Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation   in Everyday Life. New York: Hyperion <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Volumes 1 and 2. New   York: Norton (reprinted London: Routledge, 1991) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago   Press <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seligman, M. E. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology   to Realize your Potential for Lasting Fulfilment. New York: Free Press Wright, R. (2000). Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. New York: Random House <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    by Jerald R. Forster\u00a0 (This draft was published in the 2009 book, Reflections in Personal Construct Theory, edited by\u00a0 Richard J. Butler, Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.)\u00a0 Jerald Forster is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, in Seattle,  Washington, USA. He joined the faculty at that university as a counselor educator in  1966. Most of his …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1141","page","type-page","status-publish"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"GJ MZark","author_link":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/author\/gj-mzark\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"by Jerald R. Forster\u00a0 (This draft was published in the 2009 book, Reflections in Personal Construct Theory, edited by\u00a0 Richard J. Butler, Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.)\u00a0 Jerald Forster is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, in Seattle,  Washington, USA. He joined the faculty at that university as a counselor educator in  1966. Most of his…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1141"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1141\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1145,"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1141\/revisions\/1145"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/articulatingyourstrengths.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}