Any other ENFj's feel they are more of a body of negative emotions rather than positive?

[ruined]

I see the descriptions of EIE's making them seem much like the ESE in that they maximize positive emotions and tend to be mostly positive. I see myself as being more of a "positive emotional initiator" in my groups with people I enjoy and those I consider friends but in daily life, I tend to be broody and even somewhat depressive. Now I know this may just be a product of my withstanding depression but I think that I should still be more true to what Fe base means.

This post is not to say that I am not an EIE but that I wonder if others of the same sociotype feel as I do.

[Bertrand]

EIE is -Fe whereas ESE is +Fe in model G. the +/- means general psychological valence, so you're right EIEs are more competent in the "negative" side of emotions (Fe is emotions in model G). In short I think you're right about what you're saying and EIE is a "negativist" type, so there you go

[The Reality Denialist]

Just listen to Jordan Peterson. Some member type him as EIE. While he can have fun with Kermit he is usually a crybaby.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

Some theories like the model G present beta NF in more negativist light but others simply claim that Fe is about sharing the positive emotion and excluding the negative ones. Socionics names EIE The Hamlet, imagine young Hamlet as the Shakespear's character in one of his most tragic stories. He wasn't much of an optimist was he?

In my own experience with EIEs they do have negative emotion just like everyone else and they can spend time thinking about them, but they often choose something that seems to be more soothing for their environment. I know an EIE 3 who always tries to escape negative feelings with work, simply because he sees it as more important. But he's not a positive person either, he doesn't fake happiness, when it's not there. But he also doesn't like be the crybaby and simply does what feels the best for him in the long run.

[golden]

Yes.

There's often a gap between my inner heaving mass of negative thoughts and emotions, and how I present myself. Sometimes the gap is more slim, other times it's huge. I used to show more of it than I do now.

When people say Fe is fake, I used to say no, no, but really, I have no basis to say that. I'm fake as fuck, and people should be glad I'm sparing them what I really think and feel most of the time.

[Adam Strange]

@golden, there is a difference between fakery and discretion.

[golden]

@golden, there is a difference between fakery and discretion.

Yes, but my view on it--ymmv--is that mere discretion means not indulging something. In practice, for me, it looks like nothing.

Fakery is whatever I generate to cover over, it's something actively misleading, even if the intent is not malicious.

[ruined]

Some theories like the model G present beta NF in more negativist light but others simply claim that Fe is about sharing the positive emotion and excluding the negative ones. Socionics names EIE The Hamlet, imagine young Hamlet as the Shakespear's character in one of his most tragic stories. He wasn't much of an optimist was he?

In my own experience with EIEs they do have negative emotion just like everyone else and they can spend time thinking about them, but they often choose something that seems to be more soothing for their environment. I know an EIE 3 who always tries to escape negative feelings with work, simply because he sees it as more important. But he's not a positive person either, he doesn't fake happiness, when it's not there. But he also doesn't like be the crybaby and simply does what feels the best for him in the long run.

I think what you said, pushing emotion aside to do work is largely part of his enneagram yes? 3's are commonly types that will push emotions aside to complete work. I am a 4 and that might be my fatal flaw.

[Bertrand]

the older I get the more I realize "fakeness" is just an attribution people give others and rarely genuinely the case. something like lies or fraud is real fakeness and does happen, but people who don't act the way you'd act under similar circumstances aren't necessarily "fake." I conceal my negative emotions when I feel the time is not right to let them hang out, I don't think that makes me fake, I think it just makes me considerate. even then when I do let them out people don't like it either. its sort of a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. the flipside to that is when people don't "think" deeply I have a tendency to see it as manipulative, because I assume of course all the implications of their thinking must be intentional, but that is rarely the case. I think thinking no less than feeling has that sense of what Fi calls Fe "fake" but it takes a slightly different form (people don't call it "fake" but it has a similar dynamic of mistrust between the types). in essence these are all psychological dynamics, i.e.: a form of maya.. real lies do happen of course, but its not like people are living total lies in the way people often believe about eachother.. they're just different

[Hope]

IDK, but most I've known personally looked and acted somehow angry most of the time.

[Raver]

There is an EIE I know irl that is generally very friendly and positive in short term interactions, but any time it evolves into a long term interaction whether one on one or in groups it slowly becomes negative and pessimistic. It's generally convincing too because the EIE draws on real life examples and says it with conviction and compelling evidence, but you can't help but feel that it's still biased at looking at the glass as half empty rather than half full. I suspect that some form of depression might have something to do with it though.

[Desert Financial]

Just listen to Jordan Peterson. Some member type him as EIE. While he can have fun with Kermit he is usually a crybaby.

Pretty much. He almost comes off as a greasy, depressive, recovering alcoholic who stared into the abyss for too long.

[strrrng]

EIEs are probably my favorite type to deal with in general interactions for this reason. But, to me, the tendency is more of a natural acclimation to internal conflict than outright negativity. Anyway the examples are endless, but a few that come to mind... one EIE friend (who happens to be an Fe-sub E7) came with me to a concert some months ago, and while participatory and positive overall, at intervals he would make these very direct critiques of the music and crowd in a way that tacitly challenged me to match his state. Another EIE friend (this one an Ni-sub E3) was selling me and an ILI acquaintance of his liquid psilocybin vials during a casual get together... the ILI began asking dumb questions about the amounts and dosage levels and EIE simply corrected him, but then when he persisted the EIE very curtly summed things up and then went into a mocking monologue about psychedelic voyages with me to solidify his criticism. Anyway the pattern is that EIEs are the type who has to balance the scales whether they want to or not, so a certain degree of social winnowing is inevitable.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

The most fake positive type I have ever come across was an IEE 2w3, she was my highschool classmate. I remember once she had been missing school for over a week and when she came back, I asked her what was wrong, why did she miss school? She told me that her grandpa has died. My natural reaction was to show her my sympathy and I said it's awful and I hope she'd feel better, but she told me that she doesn't feel bad, because she never focuses on the negative emotion and tries to stay positive at any cost. I honestly couldn't understand that, I mean... her grandpa died, but she walked through the classroom with this big shiny smile. It's kind of scary when you think about it.

[ruined]

There is an EIE I know irl that is generally very friendly and positive in short term interactions, but any time it evolves into a long term interaction whether one on one or in groups it slowly becomes negative and pessimistic. It's generally convincing too because the EIE draws on real life examples and says it with conviction and compelling evidence, but you can't help but feel that it's still biased at looking at the glass as half empty rather than half full. I suspect that some form of depression might have something to do with it though.

This happens to sound exactly like most of my interactions with people. All fun and flowers from the beginning and then into gloom and doom.

But I like it this way...

[ruined]

But, to me, the tendency is more of a natural acclimation to internal conflict than outright negativity.

Yes... very much so. I have been struggling with internal conflicts, especially when it comes to knowing who I really am and what I stand for what seems to be an eternity.

[Exodus]

I see the descriptions of EIE's making them seem much like the ESE in that they maximize positive emotions and tend to be mostly positive. I see myself as being more of a "positive emotional initiator" in my groups with people I enjoy and those I consider friends but in daily life, I tend to be broody and even somewhat depressive. Now I know this may just be a product of my withstanding depression but I think that I should still be more true to what Fe base means.

This post is not to say that I am not an EIE but that I wonder if others of the same sociotype feel as I do.

I'm not EIE but this is definitely a common trend with EIEs. Creative Ni is going to lead to some negativity.

[Cosmic Teapot]

I see the descriptions of EIE's making them seem much like the ESE in that they maximize positive emotions and tend to be mostly positive. I see myself as being more of a "positive emotional initiator" in my groups with people I enjoy and those I consider friends but in daily life, I tend to be broody and even somewhat depressive. Now I know this may just be a product of my withstanding depression but I think that I should still be more true to what Fe base means.

This post is not to say that I am not an EIE but that I wonder if others of the same sociotype feel as I do.

The brain is wired to give negative thoughts more weight than positive thoughts. My impression so far is that EIEs are too disconnected from their 'true' self and drown in their own complexity. Because of that they seem to be unable to conciously balance their thoughts.
Gulenko labels them as the most intellectual type - I think their own head works against them.
And I find the idea of EIEs being fake rather sad.
According to Jung every individual has a 'Persona' - our public image. Isn't that fakery, too? Why should EIEs be more fake than other types? To me it seems that they are too aware of their public image and give themselves disproportionate amounts of criticism.

[Bertrand]

please, tell me what my "true self" is

the assumption you're making is whatever it is it must be balance, because lack of balance is by definition missing the mark. its like its never occurred to you maybe that's not the point of life. maybe EIE is perfectly on "balance" and they track the situation better than you can possibly imagine. also your point about negativity being weighted applies to everyone and is because if you fuck up you die and that's it. a sense of time is precondition for danger sense and the weaker the sense of time in general the more secure people tend to feel, but it is an illusion, danger is still there, its just ignorance. time is one of the only thing that separates people from animals, so there's a kind of perverse logic to suggesting if we just shed that which makes us human we'd feel better, and since feeling good is the goal that's what we ought to do, and any trouble is some measure of falling short of that. honestly SLIs just come across as monkeys that managed to pass a turing test, but barely. its like everything they say and think is a paperthin illusion, over what amounts to a simple one dimensional search for physical satisfaction. one gets the impression the only reason they learned to talk was so they could more effectively seek their own base self interest. in a humorous way they're like the NPCs for everyone else's life. their whole existence amounts to taking up space and providing the backdrop upon which everyone else actually experiences some form of meaning. if we didn't have these empty suits running around we wouldn't have a baseline for comparison. in that sense they do achieve "balance".. its the taking everything that matters and living a life that devalues it so completely they form a basis for comparison, becoming the pole on the other side. its the pole of being a body and little more. if we listen to "the body" speak of course they're like "my brain hurts" and all these other physical descriptions of themselves. its like they're just reporting on the locations affected by phenomena. they should just make animal sounds since their understanding of language and rationality only ever comes out as twisted beyond belief. if cosmic teapot communicated by barking like a dog that would probably be the most genuine and accurate reflection of whats really going on inside. such people have nothing to add on the problems plaguing humanity beyond their living example of having their heads almost literally up their ass. maybe could do productive work on developing a theory of hemorrhoids, and, please, stay safe

[strrrng]

Yes... very much so. I have been struggling with internal conflicts, especially when it comes to knowing who I really am and what I stand for what seems to be an eternity.

Yeah... it definitely holds for IEIs, too; but I actually think EIEs are more pointedly affected by it. For example, the psilocybin EIE and I were friends back in the day before I moved to Denver, and at that point we were both around 20, dealing with the strife or whatever. But I just kind of threw myself into the currents and assumed my feelings were justified, whereas he always felt a little more precarious, not less committed, just more aware of the fact that the world still demanded some kind of balance that he couldn't fully generate. Now he's on the path to marriage but manages to pull it off better than 99% of people I've seen commit in similar ways. And it's not like I'm dosing at raves every weekend... EIEs just definitely know how to be the proper kind of social force when they don't forget that it's ok to not be completely fine with how they manage their emotions.

[golden]

The brain is wired to give negative thoughts more weight than positive thoughts.

Reading a lot about neuroscience has helped me manage my emotions a bit better, because of information like this.

My impression so far is that EIEs are too disconnected from their 'true' self and drown in their own complexity.

And what if your ‘true’ self is that complexity?

Because of that they seem to be unable to conciously balance their thoughts.

What would consciously balancing one’s thoughts look like?

And I find the idea of EIEs being fake rather sad.

Why? Can you conceive of what fake could mean if it weren’t negatively valenced?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well EIE is mirrors with IEI, and IEI is also a deflated/negative type. ILEs like to call me 'the fun killer.'

[WVBRY]

I personally think the "true self" is different from the personality. The self is what you really want out of existence. The personality is like a shell we build around our true selves throughout our lives due to contact with people. We build our armor to protect our selves, to the point we don't know what we truly want. Society teaches us so many "don'ts" we lose track of what we really want. We think we know what we want, one moment, then our mind drifts off to something else another moment. At any moment our minds drift from thinking about getting laid to food to our next job. This shows just how out of focus we are. We aeren't really "there" with ourselves.

For those who are familiar with Crowley what he called the "higher self" is similar to what I am calling "true self" though I think "self" sounds less cheesy and cliché. Note that I don't know how @Cosmic Teapot meant it.

Keep in mind I'm not using the "personality" to mean TIM. TIM is just how you process information. Personality comes the Latin word "persona" which means mask. Conceptually this is fairly revealing as to the nature of "personality".

I also don't think being out of touch with the self is something EIEs are more prone to than others since everyone is out of touch with it to a large extent. Perhaps doms, being more aware than others of how others perceive them, are more prone to the pitfalls of the personality than other types.

[Bertrand]

Jung actually has a definition of the self, so we don't need to just supply our own, especially since its at the center of all of typology. having random people come up with their own definition detached from the Jungian tradition and then inserting into the center transforms it into whatever. it just renders everything meaningless, sort of like letting enneagram or some other concept essentially "overwrite" any discrepancy you care for. its sort of humorous because "desire" at the center of the self is a particularly limited definition. not to mention you can say you're using personality to mean something else beside TIM, but TIM started out as an attempt to get a handle on personality in the technical sense, which are the motivating forces that control people's destinies. your whole approach is so detached and un self aware its sort of mind boggling anyone would take those ideas seriously they're more like appeals to popular and shallow prejudices, crowley included. people think personality in typological sense is somehow different than personality in the colloquial sense but they need to understand personality developed as a concept in history and its the animating forces operating in human beings and Gods i.e.: free agents.. when people talk about personality they're talking about that, and typology is meant to describe the same thing. if we compartmentalize them in our mind we have immediately stopped being serious about typology. it just becomes a kind of novelty and not relevant to everyday life, so why would anyone bother with what someone thinks about what amounts to a diversionary game from "real life".. its like they don't even bother to consider this could be "real" and offer what amount to opinions they up front know don't matter and so offer the least well thought out ones possible and they don't bother to do any sort of research into the topic either, since because none of it matters and is meaningless anyway, their ignorant opinion is just as valuable as the countless years of effort that have gone into it before. its like being born yesterday and thinking you've got the answers. typology forums become a "safe space" to discuss their infantile and malformed ideas and they assume everyone else is likewise operating on the level of a 2 year old understanding and we all came to throw stuff into the pot, its like implicit in a lot of these posts is the premise typology is nothing but an idiot convention when theres actually a ton of erudition behind it, but people drag it down with the dumbest low brow shit constantly and then feel validated when the bar is so low any sort of dialogue at all is considered appropriate and useful. this sort of mob mentality is bolstered by simply calling any expert biased in order to drag them down to the level of ignorant forums poster x who decided what the "self" means based on living in the least "self aware" culture of all time (and lets not confuse being neurotic or science with self awareness, this is precisely the kind of leveling of what the self means that makes a mockery of the word), funny really. "I'm self aware because I can get a brain scan" wow! "im self aware because I act like woody allen" really! we have such low standards for self awareness "im self aware because I know what I want" is just one more toddler level discovery. as if knowing what you want and what it is that you want isn't the real issue. if you want a jeep and you know it are you really self aware? what a low standard we've set. you're still mostly a senseless set of drives conditioned by society to run around seeking objects and then you die, and we say, yeah but if we're aware of the particular objects we want its some kind of triumph (the self is that which collects this set of objects and not that). its the dynamic itself and control over it that constitutes self awareness, possessing people or goods like objects is a consequence of lack of self awareness and it doesn't matter how in touch with your "desires" you get it will always be fatally shallow because its just another version of living by bread alone. these people are free to live like that but why would anyone take their ideas on the "self" seriously is beyond me. I can look outside at a billboard trying to sell me something I don't want to get a version of the "self" that is you are what you can purchase

[WVBRY]

Carp, carp, carp

You're wrong.

[Bertrand]

you flatterer!

[WVBRY]

What

[Desert Financial]

A lot of different ways to define the "self", but if we're to take Jung's word for it:

(1) The self is a union of the conscious and unconscious.
(2) The unconscious constitutes repressed instinctual forces, including repressed desires.
(3) Therefore, "getting in touch with oneself" involves a conscious recognition of previously repressed desires.

[Bertrand]

yeah, and a lot more

it is not identified with those desires

[Cosmic Teapot]

Reading a lot about neuroscience has helped me manage my emotions a bit better, because of information like this.
And what if your 'true' self is that complexity?

I don't know what's going on in your head so I don't know. Personally, what I mean by 'complexity' is the sum of opinions, memories, wishes, plans etc. that makes people unique. The only problem is that (for me) these things never stay constant. They change with time and new information. What I see as my true self (and I'm not referring to Jung) is what I experience in the current moment. Nothing is more real than my sensations and feelings in the current moment.

What would consciously balancing one's thoughts look like?

For me it's journaling my thoughts, taking a walk, nap, do something I enjoy - iow find a state where I can think calmly. Often meeting a friend who can help me get a new perspective is the key. For you it's maybe talking to an LSI?

Why? Can you conceive of what fake could mean if it weren't negatively valenced?

I'm not sure whether I understood the question. We need to hide parts of ourselves to appear normal and to not be ostracized. With that in mind everyone can act 'fake' to a degree. We are all wearing masks (/playing our roles in modern society). It's not even the same mask all the time. So I try to be cautious when judging someone for that.


That being said I'm just sharing opinions. I know some EIEs. A friend of mine identifies as one. I don't understand them. All I can see that they seem to be complex beings with gloomy eyes who are unnecessarily hard on themselves.

[Exodus]

I don't know what's going on in your head so I don't know. Personally, what I mean by 'complexity' is the sum of opinions, memories, wishes, plans etc. that makes people unique. The only problem is that (for me) these things never stay constant. They change with time and new information. What I see as my true self (and I'm not referring to Jung) is what I experience in the current moment. Nothing is more real than my sensations and feelings in the current moment.

But don't your current experiences change also? Then they can't be "you" any more than the internal qualities you listed.

If you look at your life and the things that stay constant, then you'll know who your true self is. At an external level this will include things like your type, at a deeper level it includes what it means to be a human being.

[golden]

I don't know what's going on in your head so I don't know. Personally, what I mean by 'complexity' is the sum of opinions, memories, wishes, plans etc. that makes people unique. The only problem is that (for me) these things never stay constant. They change with time and new information. What I see as my true self (and I'm not referring to Jung) is what I experience in the current moment. Nothing is more real than my sensations and feelings in the current moment.





For me it's journaling my thoughts, taking a walk, nap, do something I enjoy - iow find a state where I can think calmly. Often meeting a friend who can help me get a new perspective is the key. For you it's maybe talking to an LSI?



I'm not sure whether I understood the question. We need to hide parts of ourselves to appear normal and to not be ostracized. With that in mind everyone can act 'fake' to a degree. We are all wearing masks (/playing our roles in modern society). It's not even the same mask all the time. So I try to be cautious when judging someone for that.


That being said I'm just sharing opinions. I know some EIEs. A friend of mine identifies as one. I don't understand them. All I can see that they seem to be complex beings with gloomy eyes who are unnecessarily hard on themselves.

Thank you for answering these questions. I’ll need to consider what you’re said, because it does seem like we possess starkly different basic assumptions. Just for example, “thinking calmly” is probably not ever a goal of mine and doesn’t speak to my needs, so I have to think about what could be analogous in my life.

[Cosmic Teapot]

But don't your current experiences change also? Then they can't be "you" any more than the internal qualities you listed.

Of course current experiences change. But the entity (the "self" or "me" if you like) / the ability to perceive is constant.
The question whether there can be a "you" and what it is - is so old I won't even try to give a definite answer that is good enough for everyone. The most prominent proposal is "I think therefore I am"

If you look at your life and the things that stay constant, then you'll know who your true self is. At an external level this will include things like your type, at a deeper level it includes what it means to be a human being.

That's not sufficient to me. You can only ask yourself "What in my life has been constant - so far" - (and has that what I remember as being constant already been distorted by my imperfect memory).
Obviously no one changes in his entirety at once - it's a lifelong process.


What means to be a human being is also relative - which would lead to anthropological discussions...
.. and so on, and so on. Neither neurology, psychology, philosophy has been able to give an answer to what the self is - that stayed constant.


I think you can even go so far as to say "The only thing that is constant is that nothing is constant" - then we're starting to think in circles.

(I think I coming off as a bit irritated here - I'm not. These questions enter territories where I don't feel confident in - and I don't think I can answer them in a way you would find sufficient)

[Desert Financial]

yeah, and a lot more

it is not identified with those desires

The definition of the self depends on the view of reality. For example, if we subscribe to a materialistic worldview, then the self consists of nothing more than matter. If we subscribe to a rationalist idealistic worldview, the self consists of nothing more than monads or some other immaterial substance. If we subscribe to a dualistic worldview, the nature of the self is debatable. For example, it could be the ego, or "self concept", as the mind conceives of it. It could be a mixture of mind and body. It could be the immaterial mind as a whole. It could even be the "soul", as some religions might have you believe. Or it could be, as Locke believed, a synthesis of immaterial consciousness that could perceive itself through time. The "self" as we understand it, could be nothing more than an illusion, trapping us from perceiving reality as a whole. And if reality as a whole is in a constant state of flux, then we have no sufficient reason to believe in a static, permanent "self."

[Exodus]

Of course current experiences change. But the entity (the "self" or "me" if you like) / the ability to perceive is constant.

Yes

The question whether there can be a "you" and what it is - is so old I won't even try to give a definite answer that is good enough for everyone. The most prominent proposal is "I think therefore I am"



That's not sufficient to me. You can only ask yourself "What in my life has been constant - so far" - (and has that what I remember as being constant already been distorted by my imperfect memory).
Obviously no one changes in his entirety at once - it's a lifelong process.


What means to be a human being is also relative - which would lead to anthropological discussions...
.. and so on, and so on. Neither neurology, psychology, philosophy has been able to give an answer to what the self is - that stayed constant.


I think you can even go so far as to say "The only thing that is constant is that nothing is constant" - then we're starting to think in circles.

Whole books have been written on this question, but suffice it to say, you can't answer it without serious introspection and spiritual striving.

[Bertrand]

The definition of the self depends on the view of reality. For example, if we subscribe to a materialistic worldview, then the self consists of nothing more than matter. If we subscribe to a rationalist idealistic worldview, the self consists of nothing more than monads or some other immaterial substance. If we subscribe to a dualistic worldview, the nature of the self is debatable. For example, it could be the ego, or "self concept", as the mind conceives of it. It could be a mixture of mind and body. It could be the immaterial mind as a whole. It could even be the "soul", as some religions might have you believe. Or it could be, as Locke believed, a synthesis of immaterial consciousness that could perceive itself through time. The "self" as we understand it, could be nothing more than an illusion, trapping us from perceiving reality as a whole. And if reality as a whole is in a constant state of flux, then we have no sufficient reason to believe in a static, permanent "self."

lol "the self is whatever a person says it is"

no. the self is the self concept + everything else (whether known unknown or even knowable)

honestly lets not be stupid, if the self is just the self concept its just the ego

for cosmic you have this to look forward to when you shift to semi dual later on in life

[Desert Financial]

lol "the self is whatever a person says it is"

This is a strawman.

no. the self is the self concept + everything else (whether known unknown or even knowable)

The self is whatever object corresponds to the concept. And, if there happens to be no object corresponding to the concept, then there is no "self."

honestly lets not be stupid, if the self is just the self concept its just the ego

Many people see it this way.

[Bertrand]

yeah I agree, they redefine socionics to mean whatever they want, that was my point. the problem is their theory sucks

I took it for granted that reducing the self to the ego is a step backward, but usually when people disagree they're not so bold to simply say so on a socionics forum since its a basic tenet of socionics no matter what model you subscribe to the self is greater than the ego. i also agree that reducing the self to the ego is a symptom of a literally egotistical culture that raises its people to believe that and a big "part of the problem" especially when a person talks in the context of "self awareness." its like, you threw out self awareness right at the onset and defined the self as being confined to your desires and then made awareness of desires self awareness. its incredibly shallow, but a lot of people do believe exactly that. large numbers don't make it true, it just makes genuine self awareness rare

[WVBRY]

yeah I agree, they redefine socionics to mean whatever they want, that was my point. the problem is their theory sucks

I took it for granted that reducing the self to the ego is a step backward, but usually when people disagree they're not so bold to simply say so on a socionics forum since its a basic tenet of socionics no matter what model you subscribe to the self is greater than the ego. i also agree that reducing the self to the ego is a symptom of a literally egotistical culture that raises its people to believe that and a big "part of the problem" especially when a person talks in the context of "self awareness." its like, you threw out self awareness right at the onset and defined the self as being confined to your desires and then made awareness of desires self awareness. its incredibly shallow, but a lot of people do believe exactly that. large numbers don't make it true, it just makes genuine self awareness rare

It seems to me this argument is just using words to manipulate value judgements without attaching meaning to the concepts the words are supposed to represent. You say "ego" to mean something negative, and "self" and "self awareness" to mean something positive.

You need to define "self", "self awareness" and "ego", how these things are alike and different from each other. Attach concepts to the words. Not just binary values to the words.

[WVBRY]

lol "the self is whatever a person says it is"

no. the self is the self concept + everything else (whether known unknown or even knowable)

honestly lets not be stupid, if the self is just the self concept its just the ego

Ok this works as a definition more or less.

"The self is the self concept plus everything else whether known or even knowable".

No dude, the self is not "everything in existence", I strongly disagree with your definition and I'm not even sure what it means.

Our selves are individual, therefore yes, the self is the ego if you will, though I also think that the self is more than just what we see as our individual identity, our personality, the personality is only one level of our individuality.