I'm sure most of us have collided with assholes (or possibly been the asshole), at one time or another. I'd argue that assholes are being authentic, at the expense of others. It's this anti-social...
I'm sure most of us have collided with assholes (or possibly been the asshole), at one time or another.
I'd argue that assholes are being authentic, at the expense of others. It's this anti-social authenticity that's problematic and causative of unhappiness. "Be yourself" doesn't help you build supportive relationships, collaborate, or find love if you behave as if you're self-centered, pessimistic, inconsiderate, abrasive, impatient, needy, dependent, paranoid, arrogant, temperamental, aggressive, demanding, or otherwise an unrestrained bearer of major negative personality traits.
We've all got some of these tendencies, and learning to restrain them is part of becoming an adult. At the same time, learning enough about yourself to understand and meet the emotional needs underlying these personality thorns lets you be more authentic without harming others. This emotional competency helps you become more generous and likeable. I expect that's behind the reported findings; it's a lot easier to live as an authentic adult than as a stunted authentic five-year-old in an adult's skin.
I think this is the key takeaway here. It's always a balance between doing what you truly want and what society expects of you. Part of becoming an adult (i.e., a "functional" member of society is...
We've all got some of these tendencies, and learning to restrain them is part of becoming an adult.
I think this is the key takeaway here. It's always a balance between doing what you truly want and what society expects of you. Part of becoming an adult (i.e., a "functional" member of society is finding that balance that allows you to express yourself without being a complete asshole). Most people have that awkward teenage/early 20s period where they are still figuring out who they are and what that balance is. 18 year old me wouldn't recognize who I am now at all but I feel like I'm much more "authentic" now than I did back then.
I do see the argument that assholes are authentic. That doesn't mean they're good people or that we have to like them. They're just...authentic assholes.
Who the fuck conducted said research? What's the definition of "feeling authentic" – and how the hell do I feel so out-of-touch with it? I feel better when I engage with people 'cause I like...
research has shown that people feel most authentic when they conform to a particular set of socially approved qualities
Who the fuck conducted said research? What's the definition of "feeling authentic" – and how the hell do I feel so out-of-touch with it?
I feel better when I engage with people 'cause I like positive human contact, but that's likely because of the social circuits in my brain. I feel more authentic when I'm engaging in deep work, doing something meaningful 'cause I like making things. Making things is part of my self-definition, derived from years of observation. It's not something I do because I've been compelled to; in fact, I've been on numerous occasions harsly punished for being creative. It's something that's just there, as a core trait. I wouldn't even know how not to adhere to it.
Conversely, I feel worse if I don't speak up. I hate conflict – it overwhelms me in a way that requires emotional recovery immediately after – but if I choose to suppress it because I don't want to rock the boat, it makes for a worse aftermath in the long run. I feel more authentic if I've been an asshole to someone on a subject that matters to me, because it's in my nature – based again on years of observation – to stand up to what I perceive as ignorance and foul judgement and deceit. In other words, I feel more authentic being an asshole for a couple of minutes than I do not being one for hours.
Overall, this feels like a failure to define the goals correctly, and misinterpreting the data because of it. The article's conclusions don't align with mine.
I take issue with the entire premise that people have a "true" nature on the inside that's independent of their behaviors and actions. What we think of as our "true" selves is just the path of...
I take issue with the entire premise that people have a "true" nature on the inside that's independent of their behaviors and actions. What we think of as our "true" selves is just the path of least resistance in our behavioral patterns. These are socially conditioned into us through a combination of internal tendencies and environmental influences. They're no more "true" than anything else we do, it's all kind of dependent on the stimuli around us.
Now there may be a more esoteric "true" self deep on the inside, but at that point we're getting into Hindu philosophy about atman and even, there, the whole point is that this "true" self is veiled and difficult to discover specifically because of all the egocentric delusions we live under.
The more I look into human behavior, the more I start to realize that there's a set of qualities one would undoubtably strive towards, given perfect conditions. Kindness, generosity, truth, clear...
The more I look into human behavior, the more I start to realize that there's a set of qualities one would undoubtably strive towards, given perfect conditions. Kindness, generosity, truth, clear judgement, creativity and self-expression, wisdom... They may differ somewhat, but the general idea is always similar: prefer behaviors that result in more constructive results, socially or materially.
Maybe there's isn't so much a true self as there is true humanhood?
I'd agree. I'm pretty fond of the Buddhist construction that there's no static, fixed, permanent "self", just a set of malleable traits and reactions which can be mindfully changed over time. It's...
I'd agree. I'm pretty fond of the Buddhist construction that there's no static, fixed, permanent "self", just a set of malleable traits and reactions which can be mindfully changed over time. It's a matter of training your inner observer to pay attention, which requires purposeful effort.
To borrow a truism from pop philosophy, your self is a process, not a thing. The same is true even of our bodies. They are not really a cohesive object, rather they are an extremely complex and...
To borrow a truism from pop philosophy, your self is a process, not a thing. The same is true even of our bodies. They are not really a cohesive object, rather they are an extremely complex and somewhat localized chemical chain reaction.
I received and intellectually understood this information years and years ago, I have yet to fully integrate it meaningfully into my mental outlook or emotional presence. In this way, no matter what I do, I am always living (and often feeling) my inauthentic self.
If there's "internal tendencies" then it's not all dependent on external stimuli. And as far as I know there's some personality traits (e.g. being impulsive, extraverted, etc) that are relatively...
it's all kind of dependent on the stimuli around us.
If there's "internal tendencies" then it's not all dependent on external stimuli. And as far as I know there's some personality traits (e.g. being impulsive, extraverted, etc) that are relatively stable during our life, there's even solid evidence (from twin studies) that there's genetic factors at work.
It's like saying there's no true height because it depends on your diet or that you can take growth hormone, or have bone surgery.
I think the problem is more an epistemic one ; it's much harder to know your personality than your height.
Yup. That's the point. It's not really meaningful to talk of a "true" height. Height is an expression of genetic tendencies and the historic and present responses to external stimuli. There is no...
It's like saying there's no true height because it depends on your diet or that you can take growth hormone, or have bone surgery.
Yup. That's the point. It's not really meaningful to talk of a "true" height. Height is an expression of genetic tendencies and the historic and present responses to external stimuli. There is no "true" or "false" conception of it here.
Genetic and environmental stimuli determine how you respond and adapt, but the actual expression is dependent on all of these things. And where the real world is concerned, it's the expression that matters. The inner cognitive process is generally pretty mysterious, even to the one undergoing it. For the most part we rationalize our behavior as we introspect. It's a sort of story we tell ourselves and not necessarily the full truth of what actually happened.
I'm sure most of us have collided with assholes (or possibly been the asshole), at one time or another.
I'd argue that assholes are being authentic, at the expense of others. It's this anti-social authenticity that's problematic and causative of unhappiness. "Be yourself" doesn't help you build supportive relationships, collaborate, or find love if you behave as if you're self-centered, pessimistic, inconsiderate, abrasive, impatient, needy, dependent, paranoid, arrogant, temperamental, aggressive, demanding, or otherwise an unrestrained bearer of major negative personality traits.
We've all got some of these tendencies, and learning to restrain them is part of becoming an adult. At the same time, learning enough about yourself to understand and meet the emotional needs underlying these personality thorns lets you be more authentic without harming others. This emotional competency helps you become more generous and likeable. I expect that's behind the reported findings; it's a lot easier to live as an authentic adult than as a stunted authentic five-year-old in an adult's skin.
I think this is the key takeaway here. It's always a balance between doing what you truly want and what society expects of you. Part of becoming an adult (i.e., a "functional" member of society is finding that balance that allows you to express yourself without being a complete asshole). Most people have that awkward teenage/early 20s period where they are still figuring out who they are and what that balance is. 18 year old me wouldn't recognize who I am now at all but I feel like I'm much more "authentic" now than I did back then.
I do see the argument that assholes are authentic. That doesn't mean they're good people or that we have to like them. They're just...authentic assholes.
Who the fuck conducted said research? What's the definition of "feeling authentic" – and how the hell do I feel so out-of-touch with it?
I feel better when I engage with people 'cause I like positive human contact, but that's likely because of the social circuits in my brain. I feel more authentic when I'm engaging in deep work, doing something meaningful 'cause I like making things. Making things is part of my self-definition, derived from years of observation. It's not something I do because I've been compelled to; in fact, I've been on numerous occasions harsly punished for being creative. It's something that's just there, as a core trait. I wouldn't even know how not to adhere to it.
Conversely, I feel worse if I don't speak up. I hate conflict – it overwhelms me in a way that requires emotional recovery immediately after – but if I choose to suppress it because I don't want to rock the boat, it makes for a worse aftermath in the long run. I feel more authentic if I've been an asshole to someone on a subject that matters to me, because it's in my nature – based again on years of observation – to stand up to what I perceive as ignorance and foul judgement and deceit. In other words, I feel more authentic being an asshole for a couple of minutes than I do not being one for hours.
Overall, this feels like a failure to define the goals correctly, and misinterpreting the data because of it. The article's conclusions don't align with mine.
Interesting follow on from this thread: https://tildes.net/~life/maa/be_yourself_is_terrible_advice
Thanks! I posted both of them and thought they played well off one another!
Yes.
I take issue with the entire premise that people have a "true" nature on the inside that's independent of their behaviors and actions. What we think of as our "true" selves is just the path of least resistance in our behavioral patterns. These are socially conditioned into us through a combination of internal tendencies and environmental influences. They're no more "true" than anything else we do, it's all kind of dependent on the stimuli around us.
Now there may be a more esoteric "true" self deep on the inside, but at that point we're getting into Hindu philosophy about atman and even, there, the whole point is that this "true" self is veiled and difficult to discover specifically because of all the egocentric delusions we live under.
The more I look into human behavior, the more I start to realize that there's a set of qualities one would undoubtably strive towards, given perfect conditions. Kindness, generosity, truth, clear judgement, creativity and self-expression, wisdom... They may differ somewhat, but the general idea is always similar: prefer behaviors that result in more constructive results, socially or materially.
Maybe there's isn't so much a true self as there is true humanhood?
I'd agree. I'm pretty fond of the Buddhist construction that there's no static, fixed, permanent "self", just a set of malleable traits and reactions which can be mindfully changed over time. It's a matter of training your inner observer to pay attention, which requires purposeful effort.
To borrow a truism from pop philosophy, your self is a process, not a thing. The same is true even of our bodies. They are not really a cohesive object, rather they are an extremely complex and somewhat localized chemical chain reaction.
I received and intellectually understood this information years and years ago, I have yet to fully integrate it meaningfully into my mental outlook or emotional presence. In this way, no matter what I do, I am always living (and often feeling) my inauthentic self.
If there's "internal tendencies" then it's not all dependent on external stimuli. And as far as I know there's some personality traits (e.g. being impulsive, extraverted, etc) that are relatively stable during our life, there's even solid evidence (from twin studies) that there's genetic factors at work.
It's like saying there's no true height because it depends on your diet or that you can take growth hormone, or have bone surgery.
I think the problem is more an epistemic one ; it's much harder to know your personality than your height.
Yup. That's the point. It's not really meaningful to talk of a "true" height. Height is an expression of genetic tendencies and the historic and present responses to external stimuli. There is no "true" or "false" conception of it here.
Genetic and environmental stimuli determine how you respond and adapt, but the actual expression is dependent on all of these things. And where the real world is concerned, it's the expression that matters. The inner cognitive process is generally pretty mysterious, even to the one undergoing it. For the most part we rationalize our behavior as we introspect. It's a sort of story we tell ourselves and not necessarily the full truth of what actually happened.
I think we mostly agree yes.