Well, this is a wonky topic. Before the question is asked, it should really be clarified what is meant by the "you" part. A lot of the responses here seem to talk about things like how you respond to situations or a crisis. I think this mostly suffers from the fact that the current wisdom is to merge what is "you" and what is "your body". You can control your body to some extent, but it's like saying you're your Toyota. You're really not. And if something happens to your body, it may drastically limit what you can express, i.e., you can become a vegetable due to an accident. But that wasn't of /your/ doing, so it's not really "you" (under the definition above). It's something that happened _to_ you. Just like most of your body, truth to be told. You don't create your infant body, or your normal body, so how can it be you? It's not, it never was.<p>So most of the time when people talk about their "true self" they're talking about "my body, without too many tweaks". And I think that's the wrong way to go about it. You should be tweaking and updating your machinery and potentially you can get pretty far doing so. But it's still just that - machinery. It's never going to be you. The "you" is not that interesting, and the idea that we're all sorts of fundamentally different "you"s is problematic in itself.<p>I think it's really the wrong question to ask, who you are. You got a machine and you can study it if you wish but it's not exactly some stable construction and it's not "you", regardless, you're just a meta-field it projects some stuff onto. I think the less mysticism around this are, the better, as the mysticism makes the machine seem too sacred and immutable, and as if it has its own right to exist.<p>"I'm not like that, that's not something I can do" is my least favorite response ever. You are not your machine. You may decide you don't want to do it, which is valid. But saying you can't do it because you're some immutable thing is not valid.<p>P.S.: I'd really like to know how they measured things like "smart" and what not in this study and why they're so confident about their measurements...<p>Seriously, there's no such thing as a reliable and unbiased "smart" test right now.