The article examines why a person carries themselves differently with different people and how to tell adjustment to the listener from fragmentation. It draws on William James's distinction between a “discordant splitting” and a “harmonious division of labor” (The Principles of Psychology, 1890), on the Analects (Book X), 1 Cor. 9:22 and James 1:8, the second sura of the Qur'an, Montaigne, Whitman and Shakespeare, and on research into personality-state variability, self-concept differentiation, self-consistency, cultural frame switching and self-presentation on social media. The proposed question of whether one's versions can know about each other is the authors' argument, not a tested method.
Questions explored
Is it normal to carry oneself differently with different people?
The article starts from the view that this is not a malfunction but the ordinary arrangement of social life. William James, in The Principles of Psychology (1890, vol. 1, ch. X), writes that a person has as many different social selves as there are distinct groups of persons about whose opinion he cares, and to each group a person usually shows a different side; James is describing a norm, not an illness. The idea of many roles also appears in Shakespeare (As You Like It, Act II, Scene 7), but for Jaques the parts follow one another through the ages of life, while James speaks of different sides of oneself shown to different people at one and the same time. James wrote as a theorist and observer: The Principles of Psychology is not an empirical study, and his distinction has to be tested against other data.
How can a normal division of roles be told apart from discord?
Right after listing the social selves, James distinguishes two cases: the division of a person into several selves may be “a discordant splitting, as where one is afraid to let one set of his acquaintances know him as he is elsewhere”, or “a perfectly harmonious division of labor, as where one tender to his children is stern to the soldiers or prisoners under his command.” In the reading of the article's authors, James judges here not the degree of difference but how the versions stand to each other: discord begins where one version has to be concealed from the circle that knows another, and where the person is afraid of this. Hence the article's working question: can my versions know about each other? James does not put it this way; it is the authors' conclusion from his distinction, and none of the studies they read tested this criterion directly.
How do the Analects view a different manner with different people?
In Book X of the Analects a different manner with different people is described as exemplary, not as pretence: “Confucius, in his village, looked simple and sincere, and as if he were not able to speak”, while in the prince's ancestral temple or at court he spoke minutely on every point, but cautiously (Book X, ch. 1, translated by James Legge); he also carried himself differently with officers of lower and of higher rank and in the ruler's presence (ch. 2). In the reading of the article's authors, within this frame the question of which Confucius is the real one does not arise: unity rests not on sameness of manner but on fidelity to the relationships this manner expresses. Book X is a description of a teacher's exemplary conduct, not psychology and not an account of inner experience; carrying it over into the question of social selves is the authors' move.
How does Paul's change of manner differ from double-mindedness in the Epistle of James?
Paul sums up in 1 Cor. 9:22: “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (King James Version). All the changes serve one task, and it is stated aloud in a letter read by the whole community; in 9:21 Paul specifies that in becoming as one without law he does not cease to be under the law before God. The Epistle of James offers the opposite image: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:8, King James Version); in context this concerns the one who asks God while wavering. In the reading of the article's authors, together the two passages distinguish a change of appearance with one purpose from a division of the purpose itself. Applying these words to work, friendship and family is the authors' interpretation: Paul speaks of preaching, the Epistle of James of faith in prayer, and neither describes the psychology of self-presentation.
When does a difference between versions of oneself stop being ordinary adjustment to the listener?
The article derives this distinction from comparing Paul, the Epistle of James and the second sura of the Qur'an. In the sura The Cow (2:14, Rodwell's translation) people say to the faithful “We believe;” and when apart with their own say that they only mock them; here the content differs, and the difference itself is concealed. In the reading of the article's authors, this is the extreme case of what William James called discordant splitting. A difference of manner, meaning tone, topics, vocabulary and degree of openness, is ordinary adjustment to the listener; a difference of claims in substance, what I promise, what I say I believe, what I report about the facts of my life, requires that the versions never meet. The Qur'an speaks of faith, deception of the community and accountability before God, not of a psychology of roles, and the judgment cannot be transferred to every discrepancy between versions of oneself: a person who is reserved with the boss and cheerful with friends is not a hypocrite.
How much does a person differ from themselves over time?
Montaigne (Essays, Book II, ch. 1) wrote that there is as much difference betwixt us and ourselves as betwixt us and others. Didem Gundogdu and colleagues (2017) found a similar proportion in data: for six weeks they followed 54 employees of a research centre in northern Italy, who three times each working day described what they had been like during the previous half hour, while wearable sensors recorded their face-to-face encounters with colleagues. For all five state measures the within-person variance exceeded the between-person variance, most strongly for extraversion; transitions between states were associated with whom, and in what configuration, a person met. The limits are named by the researchers themselves: 54 people from one organization, working hours only, states split into high and low, and a study that identifies only associations and does not allow conclusions about causes.
What does “difference across roles” actually measure in psychological research?
A common measure is self-concept differentiation: people rate how well the same traits describe them in different roles, and the more the ratings diverge, the higher the index. Aleksandra Pilarska and Anna Suchańska (2015), using three samples of Polish students and young adults with a college degree (336, 544 and 131 people aged 18 to 35), found that the index based on the spread of ratings across roles correlated only weakly with the two others (r = −0.27 and 0.27) and was related to how favourably a person viewed themselves; the authors allow that such an index partly reflects self-esteem rather than the structure of the self. In one sample a greater difference across roles went together with a weaker global sense of identity, even after accounting for the mean trait rating, and explained about 4 % of the differences; in another, when considered together with other measures of self-structure, no independent association remained. The authors' conclusion is cautious: these measures may not capture what they are supposed to capture, and drawing definite conclusions, in their words, would be premature.
Is a large difference between versions of oneself associated with worse well-being?
Where such an association is found, in the studies read for the article it ran partly, in statistical terms, through a sense of agreement with oneself. Chaoyang Zhu and colleagues (2021) surveyed 158 retirees of Henan University (average age 71): the more the self-descriptions differed across five roles, the lower the psychological well-being, the higher the anxiety and depression scores (correlations of about 0.3 to 0.4 in absolute value) and the weaker the sense of self-consistency and congruence (r = −0.34); among the younger retirees, at around 62, no such mediation was found. Magdalena Mosanya and Anna Kwiatkowska (2023), surveying 399 students who are third culture kids, found that those who described their identity as including all their cultures tended to have higher well-being, and those who keep their cultures separate tended to have lower well-being; the authors themselves call the effect mediated by self-concept consistency weak. Those who singled out one culture as the main one reported greater consistency, but their well-being was not associated with this strategy. These are correlational surveys of particular samples: the direction is not established, and in the reading of the article's authors Zhu and colleagues' claim of universality for East and West cannot be borne by such data.
Is switching between cultures good or bad?
In the reading of the article's authors, the systematic review by E. Garcha and colleagues (2025) gives no answer to whether switching is good or bad. The pre-registered review found 11 eligible studies: six qualitative, three quantitative and two mixed-methods. In all eight studies with qualitative findings, participants described benefits of switching, for relationships with family and friends, work, adjusting to society and navigating their cultural identity; five of the eight also described a cost, an internal identity conflict. According to the review authors' synthesis, the quantitative studies consistently showed an association between switching and lower well-being, but there are only five quantitative findings, their strength is heterogeneous, and positive effects were reported only in the qualitative studies. There are few studies and they are heterogeneous, no meta-analysis was carried out, publication bias is possible, and the review's authors regard the findings as somewhat preliminary; the comparison with James's criterion belongs to the article's authors, and the review did not test it.
What is known about self-presentation on social media and well-being?
Erica Bailey and colleagues (2020) compared two personality portraits of 10,560 Facebook users, how people rated themselves on a test and what their personality looked like from their Likes and status updates, as estimated by an algorithm: the closer the portraits, the higher, on average, the life satisfaction; the effect was robust but small (the largest standardized coefficient was 0.11). In an additional analysis, it was specifically self-enhancement, rating oneself higher than one's online behaviour suggested, that was associated with lower well-being, while self-deprecation showed no such association. In a pre-registered experiment, 90 students (instead of the planned 200) posted as they are for one week and in an idealized way for another; comparing the same people with themselves, mood and positive affect were higher after the authentic week (effect size about 0.4), there was no significant difference in life satisfaction, and comparing the groups after the first week, no differences were found. The study concerns social media only; what was enhanced in these data was the self-rating on the test relative to online behaviour, and the study did not test whether a person told the audience things about themselves that were not there.
Would it not be better, then, to be the same with everyone?
The article's authors think the studies they read do not show this, for three reasons. Design: the associations of differences between versions of oneself with identity and well-being come from correlational surveys of particular groups, and the direction is not established; perhaps poor well-being makes self-descriptions less consistent. The experiment by Bailey and colleagues varied not difference across roles but the instruction to post as one is or in an idealized way. Measurement: different indices of difference across roles agree poorly with one another, and the index based on the spread of ratings is related to how favourably people rate their own traits. Sameness is not wholeness: in Mosanya and Kwiatkowska's study, singling out one culture as the main one went together with greater consistency but not with greater well-being. None of the studies read tested James's criterion directly, so the question of whether my versions can know about each other is the authors' argument, resting on James and the traditions, not a tested marker.
How can this distinction be applied to oneself?
The article proposes questions for self-examination: list three to five circles you are part of regularly and write down what you are like in each; separate manner (tone, topics, vocabulary, degree of openness) from claims of substance (what you promise, what you say you believe, what you report about the facts of your life); ask of each pair of circles whether it would be awkward or frightening if the people here saw you as you are there, fear being a reason to look more closely at that pair; name what stays common across all circles; look at the direction of the difference between your description of yourself and the way you actually behave: in the social media study one direction was associated with lower well-being, namely rating oneself higher than one's online behaviour suggested, while the opposite showed no such association, and this is a correlation, not a rule; if you find a difference of substance, you do not have to make all versions the same, and sometimes it is enough to stop hiding one from another. The aim of these questions is not sameness with everyone. This is the authors' suggestion for reflection; these steps have not been tested in research.
When is it worth seeking professional help?
The article says: if the feeling that there is no real self, or the fear of being exposed between circles, does not let go and gets in the way of life, it is sensible to consult a doctor or psychologist; if thoughts of harming yourself arise, seek help right away, and in immediate danger contact the emergency services of your country. This is the authors' general caveat: the article does not promise wholeness and does not replace help from a professional, and it names no specific help services.
Key distinctions
Right after listing the social selves, James distinguishes two cases: the division of a person into several selves may be “a discordant splitting, as where one is afraid to let one set of his acquaintances know him as he is elsewhere”, or “a perfectly harmonious division of labor, as where one tender to his children is stern to the soldiers or prisoners under his command.” In the reading of the article's authors, James judges here not the degree of difference but how the versions stand to each other: discord begins where one version has to be concealed from the circle that knows another, and where the person is afraid of this. Hence the article's working question: can my versions know about each other? James does not put it this way; it is the authors' conclusion from his distinction, and none of the studies they read tested this criterion directly.
The article derives this distinction from comparing Paul, the Epistle of James and the second sura of the Qur'an. In the sura The Cow (2:14, Rodwell's translation) people say to the faithful “We believe;” and when apart with their own say that they only mock them; here the content differs, and the difference itself is concealed. In the reading of the article's authors, this is the extreme case of what William James called discordant splitting. A difference of manner, meaning tone, topics, vocabulary and degree of openness, is ordinary adjustment to the listener; a difference of claims in substance, what I promise, what I say I believe, what I report about the facts of my life, requires that the versions never meet. The Qur'an speaks of faith, deception of the community and accountability before God, not of a psychology of roles, and the judgment cannot be transferred to every discrepancy between versions of oneself: a person who is reserved with the boss and cheerful with friends is not a hypocrite.
Where such an association is found, in the studies read for the article it ran partly, in statistical terms, through a sense of agreement with oneself. Chaoyang Zhu and colleagues (2021) surveyed 158 retirees of Henan University (average age 71): the more the self-descriptions differed across five roles, the lower the psychological well-being, the higher the anxiety and depression scores (correlations of about 0.3 to 0.4 in absolute value) and the weaker the sense of self-consistency and congruence (r = −0.34); among the younger retirees, at around 62, no such mediation was found. Magdalena Mosanya and Anna Kwiatkowska (2023), surveying 399 students who are third culture kids, found that those who described their identity as including all their cultures tended to have higher well-being, and those who keep their cultures separate tended to have lower well-being; the authors themselves call the effect mediated by self-concept consistency weak. Those who singled out one culture as the main one reported greater consistency, but their well-being was not associated with this strategy. These are correlational surveys of particular samples: the direction is not established, and in the reading of the article's authors Zhu and colleagues' claim of universality for East and West cannot be borne by such data.
Erica Bailey and colleagues (2020) compared two personality portraits of 10,560 Facebook users, how people rated themselves on a test and what their personality looked like from their Likes and status updates, as estimated by an algorithm: the closer the portraits, the higher, on average, the life satisfaction; the effect was robust but small (the largest standardized coefficient was 0.11). In an additional analysis, it was specifically self-enhancement, rating oneself higher than one's online behaviour suggested, that was associated with lower well-being, while self-deprecation showed no such association. In a pre-registered experiment, 90 students (instead of the planned 200) posted as they are for one week and in an idealized way for another; comparing the same people with themselves, mood and positive affect were higher after the authentic week (effect size about 0.4), there was no significant difference in life satisfaction, and comparing the groups after the first week, no differences were found. The study concerns social media only; what was enhanced in these data was the self-rating on the test relative to online behaviour, and the study did not test whether a person told the audience things about themselves that were not there.
The article's authors think the studies they read do not show this, for three reasons. Design: the associations of differences between versions of oneself with identity and well-being come from correlational surveys of particular groups, and the direction is not established; perhaps poor well-being makes self-descriptions less consistent. The experiment by Bailey and colleagues varied not difference across roles but the instruction to post as one is or in an idealized way. Measurement: different indices of difference across roles agree poorly with one another, and the index based on the spread of ratings is related to how favourably people rate their own traits. Sameness is not wholeness: in Mosanya and Kwiatkowska's study, singling out one culture as the main one went together with greater consistency but not with greater well-being. None of the studies read tested James's criterion directly, so the question of whether my versions can know about each other is the authors' argument, resting on James and the traditions, not a tested marker.
The article proposes questions for self-examination: list three to five circles you are part of regularly and write down what you are like in each; separate manner (tone, topics, vocabulary, degree of openness) from claims of substance (what you promise, what you say you believe, what you report about the facts of your life); ask of each pair of circles whether it would be awkward or frightening if the people here saw you as you are there, fear being a reason to look more closely at that pair; name what stays common across all circles; look at the direction of the difference between your description of yourself and the way you actually behave: in the social media study one direction was associated with lower well-being, namely rating oneself higher than one's online behaviour suggested, while the opposite showed no such association, and this is a correlation, not a rule; if you find a difference of substance, you do not have to make all versions the same, and sometimes it is enough to stop hiding one from another. The aim of these questions is not sameness with everyone. This is the authors' suggestion for reflection; these steps have not been tested in research.
The article says: if the feeling that there is no real self, or the fear of being exposed between circles, does not let go and gets in the way of life, it is sensible to consult a doctor or psychologist; if thoughts of harming yourself arise, seek help right away, and in immediate danger contact the emergency services of your country. This is the authors' general caveat: the article does not promise wholeness and does not replace help from a professional, and it names no specific help services.
Limits of interpretation
- Source references cover only the cited passages (chapters, verses, sections of articles); reading of whole corpora is not claimed.
- The example of the man at the party and the practical questions are the authors' own; they are neither research findings nor a traditional practice.
- The criterion of whether one's versions can know about each other is the article authors' conclusion from James's distinction; none of the studies read tested it directly.
- James's The Principles of Psychology (1890) is a theoretical text, not an empirical study.
- Research: a six-week observation of 54 employees of one organization (northern Italy), three survey studies (Poland), a correlational survey of 158 retirees of one university (China), a cross-sectional survey of 399 students (UAE), a systematic review of 11 studies without a meta-analysis, a correlational study of Facebook users and an experiment with 90 students; associations are not presented as causes, and applying them to an individual calls for caution.
- Religious and philosophical statements (the Analects, 1 Cor. 9, James 1:8, Qur'an 2:14, Montaigne, Whitman, Shakespeare) are attributed to their own texts; applying them to work, friendship and family is the article authors' interpretation; the article claims neither a shared teaching nor a historical connection between the traditions.
- English quotations are given in the editions listed; the Russian edition of the article quotes 1 Cor. 9:22 in the Russian Synodal translation.
- The material makes no diagnoses and does not replace professional help; a general caveat is given on when to consult a doctor or psychologist and when to contact emergency services; specific help services are not named.
- Publication, library delivery and indexing were not performed in this task.
Sources
- The Principles of Psychology, Volume 1 — William James
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N02-E01, I-01-N02-E02, I-01-N02-E03, I-01-N02-E04): The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1, ch. X «The Consciousness of Self», section on the social self; ibid., the next sentence; ibid.; ibid. (discord or harmonious division of labour). The work was not read in full.
- The King James Version of the Bible / The Bible, Russian Synodal translation — The Bible
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N02-E05, I-01-N02-E06, I-01-N02-E07): 1 Corinthians 9:22 (KJV); 1 Corinthians 9:22 (Russian Synodal translation); James 1:8 (KJV). The work was not read in full.
- The Chinese Classics, vol. 1: Confucian Analects — Confucius (records of his disciples)
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N02-E08): Analects, Book X, ch. I, 1–2 (Legge). The work was not read in full.
- Essays of Michel de Montaigne — Complete — Michel de Montaigne
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N02-E09): Essays, Book II, ch. I «Of the Inconstancy of Our Actions» (Cotton tr., Hazlitt ed.). The work was not read in full.
- Leaves of Grass («Song of Myself», 51) — Walt Whitman
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N02-E10): Leaves of Grass, «Song of Myself», section 51. The work was not read in full.
- The Koran (Al-Qur'an) — The Qur'an
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N02-E11, I-01-N02-E12): Sura 2 «The Cow», v. 14 in the usual numbering (Rodwell); ibid.. The work was not read in full.
- The Complete Works of William Shakespeare — William Shakespeare
Read: the paragraphs around the excerpts (I-01-N02-E13): As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII (Jaques). The work was not read in full.
- Self-Complexity and Self-Concept Differentiation – What Have We Been Measuring for the Past 30 Years? — Aleksandra Pilarska, Anna Suchańska
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — Method: Overview and Procedure; Participants; Measures (lines 41–75); RESULTS — Results (incl. Tables 1–9) (lines 76–218); DISCUSSION — General Discussion (lines 219–239); LIMITATIONS — Limitations (lines 240–243). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N02-S08.txt
- How Does Self-Concept Differentiation Work in Chinese Retirees: A Moderated Mediation Analysis — Chaoyang Zhu, Mengmeng Zhu, Xiaoqian Gao, Xiaoyi Liu
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — Materials and Methods: Participants; Procedure; Measures (lines 35–49); RESULTS — Results (incl. Tables 1–3) (lines 50–88); DISCUSSION — Discussion (lines 89–99); LIMITATIONS — Limitation and Future Inquiries (lines 100–101). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N02-S09.txt
- Multicultural Identity Integration versus Compartmentalization as Predictors of Subjective Well-Being for Third Culture Kids: The Mediational Role of Self-Concept Consistency and Self-Efficacy — Magdalena Mosanya, Anna Kwiatkowska
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — 2. Materials and Methods (lines 55–67); RESULTS — 3. Results (incl. Tables 1–2) (lines 68–81); DISCUSSION — 4. Discussion (4.1–4.2) (lines 82–91); LIMITATIONS — 4.3. Limitations and Future Directions (lines 92–94); DISCUSSION — 5. Conclusions (lines 95–96). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N02-S10.txt
- Investigating the association between social interactions and personality states dynamics — Didem Gundogdu, Ailbhe N. Finnerty, Jacopo Staiano, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini, Fabio Pianesi, Bruno Lepri
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — 2. Material and methods (lines 42–105); RESULTS — 3. Results (lines 106–258); DISCUSSION — 4. Discussion (up to the limitations paragraph) (lines 259–274); LIMITATIONS — 4. Discussion, limitations paragraph (lines 275–275); DISCUSSION — 4. Discussion, closing paragraph (lines 276–276). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N02-S11.txt
- The impact of cultural frame switching on wellbeing — systematic review — E. Garcha, A. Qureshi, C. O'Driscoll, M. Shaikh
Full text in the saved copy: METHODS — Method (design, search, selection, appraisal, synthesis, study characteristics) (lines 37–95); RESULTS — Results (qualitative meta-synthesis; quantitative evidence synthesis) (lines 96–188); DISCUSSION — Discussion: positive and negative impact of CFS (lines 189–200); LIMITATIONS — Strengths and limitations (lines 201–206); DISCUSSION — Implications; Conclusion (lines 207–213). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N02-S12.txt
- Authentic self-expression on social media is associated with greater subjective well-being — Erica R. Bailey, Sandra C. Matz, Wu Youyou, Sheena S. Iyengar
Full text in the saved copy: RESULTS — Results: Quantified Authenticity and subjective well-being; Experimental manipulation (lines 30–81); DISCUSSION — Discussion, paras 1–2 (lines 82–84); LIMITATIONS — Discussion, limitations paragraphs (lines 85–87); DISCUSSION — Discussion, closing paragraph (lines 88–88); METHODS — Methods: Study 1 and Study 2 (lines 89–119). The abstract was not used for claims; excerpts are in READINGS/results/results_I-01-N02-S13.txt