In modern psychology there are two broadly different views of what a person is.  In the first instance, probably the older and more traditional, a person is conceived to be a variety of traits surrounding an enduring and deep core of the personality. 

In this view, there is a kernal of self, always present, always potentially to be found.  Sometimes this view includes the opposite notion that this core is never to be found, as it lies so deep in the personality, or so deep in the unconscious, that we can approach it, asymptotically so to speak, but never arrive at it.

It may be conceived as wordless.

In the second instance, the person is viewed as a committee of various, and often conflicting, selves.  There is no core at all, but a variety of sub-persons, each of which will be present in varying circumstances.  This view emphasizes the situations in which we find ourselves, which will pull our various selves into view. 

There is experimental evidence for each.  For example, the classic Milgram experiments of whether people will choose to shock others when told to do so by an authority, is often offered as the kind of paradigm in which the situation determines who we turn out to be. An amazingly high percentage of people shock people to the point of torture, even of loss of life.  It depends, in part,  on how much people believe in the authenticy of the authority.  Very little core self seems to be evident in most people, though there seem to be exceptions that highlight the more general tendency.

  As I thought about these theoretical positions, it seemed interesting to me to see if people tend towards one or the other, based on their experience of growing up, of interacting with others, of coming through various situations.  Which position do we tend to favor, based on our experience of ourselves?

That is the subject I propose for discussion, to see if it strikes a chord.