If you ask people to give an account of themselves, the answers may vary. But many will include their relationship status, where they are from, what they do for a living, where they live, if they have children or pets, their health and maybe their political affiliation, religion and sexual orientation. They may have a view of the world, a self-image and a perspective.
This map is drawn up from a North London perspective.
To suggest to anyone that they suffer from peer-Stockholm Syndrome (see previous) is unlikely to find credence. It is a step too far. Yet we may feel an urge to do most of our public relations about ourselves with that very peer group and our families. It is with them that we keep our image, our legend most alive. They then refer back to our previous press releases about the state of our legend, we give them an update. We want to fit in with our captors, so we try to share some similarity with them.
It is with our peers that we share our prejudices. Only we are unlikely to view them as such because they are reinforced and acceptable within that grouping. Because we share some similarity of outlook we can adopt an us and them view. Not me! I have no prejudices! It is however the way we do things around here, old chap.
Having cued this up an exercise and a question:
Write a short definition of yourself, what describes and defines you? Do a first version and then, if necessary, several others until you get down to some kind of essence. It may be harder than you think.
Is it possible that you have some Stockholm Syndrome?