I have been pondering upon this thought for many days now. The inner child, so to speak, is a metaphoric term which describes the internal personality not shown because the external personality is dominant in it's expression.

Many have explained that often, the inner child, is so to speak, what it claims. The childhood of that given person. Often, in relation to that comment, I have found the statement to be incorrect.

Firstly, often, when the inner child's personality is shown, it is proven that the inner child is more intelligent and understanding than the exterior personality and intelligence.

Secondly, the term 'inner child' is incorrect. Often, the 'inner child' is more mature thus it should, dependant on the person, be called the 'inner adult' or in generalisation, the inner person.

More details to come...

Odd. I always thought that someone meant their "childish side" when referring to their inner child. As in, the one more willing to have fun, or something to that extent.

Of course, they could be getting it all wrong. But I don't know.

EDIT:

Dictionary definition: One's original self that revels in play; also called child within.

I thought so.

It is true in a sense that often the more 'childish' side is more likely to be the recessive and thus disguised side of a person. Though in the case of some, it is possible that the 'childish' side is dominant and the intellectual side is recessive.

For example, someone who has a hyperactivity disorder, such as A.D.H.D (Attentive Defective Hyperactivity Disorder) shows the dominant 'childish' side and the recessive 'intellectual' side is hidden within the inner self.

Though it may often not be the will of the person to control which side of their personality is dominant, it is clear that the term inner child is generalised and typically biased towards the majority of those who control their behavior.