To say "an important part of growing up is finding yourself" is to express the most trite and the most obvious of all theories. It's something which is realized by nearly all humans on the face of the earth, yet there exists an incredible ignorance of humanity of how, exactly, one obtains self-actualization. Speaking from personal experience, I can suggest two maxims.
Firstly, one's self-perception should not be derived from what he believes about himself. Instead, it should be based on what other people think about him. Please note that when I say "one's self-perception should not be dervied from what he thinks about himself", I am exaggerating. However, many people overlook how important it is for one to know his own reputation, citing opinions such as "If you judge your life from someone else's point of view, you reveal yourself as someone who craves attention, and that's pathetic." The following statement is logical enough, but it is very narrow-minded. For example, what if a man who tries to be generous eventually commits so many acts that he considers himself a 'generous person' , but no one else does? He should regard the fact that he's not REPUTED to be generous not as the failure of other people to notice him, nor as the failure of himself to actually be generous; it's merely his failure to represent his true qualities to the rest of the world. Some people would claim that his generosity has been of no significance due to this failure. Others would claim that his generosity has been of utmost significance because he fufilled his goal in his eyes, and no one else's opinion should matter. What should be clear to everyone, though, is that he failed at executing the task of interpsychic representation, which depends on the body and objective evidence. Even though he succeeded at the task of intrapsychic representation (which depends on the mind and subjective evidence), he could still do better. Neither intrapsychic nor interpsychic representation is foolproof. When one makes his sole goal in life to intrapsychically represent himself as, say, a generous man, he is doing himself an injustice, for he's bound to distort the evidence a bit, his evidence of memories becomes weaker as memories fade, and he'll probably interpret the memories of his actions so that they apply to him exactly the way he wants them to. If the man incorporates into his goal that he should also interphysically represent himself as generous, he helps to solve this problem. A man cannot know that he's generous; it's not possible to judge moral character. He will know for sure whether or not someone actually said to him something to the effect of "you are generous", though, and since an impression must be made in order for someone to say that to him, the comment will serve as an indication that he has succeeded at actively being whom he innately is. However, he cannot make his sole goal in life to interphyically represent himself as generous, for that would establishes him as an individual person who craves for other people to like him; in the worst case scenario it establishes him as an instrument, a slave, a massive tool. If other people find him generous but he truly believes he isn't generous, he really hasn't found himself at all. That's why it's good to succeed at both.
Secondly, when examinating definitions of people (whether it be the definitions people give themselves or the definitions people have of other people) it is important to make sure they aren't too relative. Why should your life depend upon the accomplishments of another? I realize this is easier said than done; for instance, it's normal for a student to feel inferior to the typical overachiever, and for a student to envy the attention that the overachiever merits due to ccomplishments. If a passerby comes up to you and asks you if you are a good person, ideally you should answer "yes, I am good" in a sentence where 'good' means 'possessing every quality which I personally believe a good man would have, having reached the destination which I have wanted to reach, or being close to reaching it'. The destination must be one which you personally want to reach. You should not answer "yes, I am good" in a sentence where 'good' means 'possessing every quality which an accomplished person at my school has, doing as many activities as she does, having received as many prestigious awards as she has' because in such a case, you immediately become not 'good' as soon as you meet someone with more of the same. 'Good' should be an immovable body.
These two maxims have been presented in a rather pretentious style, and for that, I don't really apologize, because I've allotted myself sufficient room in this concluding paragraph to express the point that these two maxims are not to be accepted as truth. My opinions on self-definition as part of growing up have been based on my own personal experience growing up, thus some are subject to change and feebly crumble as I grow up more and accumulate more and more experiences.