User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Authenticity

  1. #21
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    That is all I am saying. The notions of good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, etc., though important in their own right, are orthogonal to the matter of authenticity.

    But the idea that the word "authentic" conotes nothing at all is far fetched to me. It is a clumsy word to be sure. But that is where there is room for discussion.
    The point is that 'authenticity' is a charged word. It might be better if we use a lesser-charged word than something like 'authenticity' when referring to something like this. Maybe we should call it 'cupcakes' instead?

    Authenticity... there are a lot of ways one could define it. It could be the understanding of the entire form of a person, or it could be being in touch with one's distilled feelings. They're nearly opposites, but authenticity could mean both -- authenticity as in purity of everything that comes along with everything, or authenticity as in staying true to motives. You can't connect the two as being the same, though (as the article seems to try). Also, it could actually mean 'cupcakes,' but that's a more absurd suggestion.

    These are points for discussion as well. Would it make things worse, if you knew what you wanted to be doing and couldn't do it? What is your belief in the matter.
    I know what I want to be doing but don't allow myself to do it all the time. To see the 'outside,' as it seems to be described here, and not be able to go to it, would be terrible. It would naturally create a drive to go to the ideal that you now know, but you just plain wouldn't be able to do it. It's awfully cruel, isn't it? Like stringing a carrot in front of a donkey to get him to move.

    I am also intrigued by the notion of someone who cannot be authentic. Do you know such people? I do not. I would guess all such people to be sociopaths.
    Then I am a sociopath.

    The article is describing two different things -- accepting everything, the internal 'mess' of a person, and also figuring out true desires and sticking with them. It doesn't sound like the two can coexist, because once one accepts the 'mess,' one cannot distill what one really wants. It's just too goddamned messy! If one accepts the whole 'mess' as the real you, you can't possibly sort through it and remain authentic in that sense by pulling out something useful, because the useful thing pulled out will have some fake things to make it cohesive, and by leaving out the other 'less important' things is fakery through omission.

    Also, one can go out on a limb and say that it's not that anybody is ever not authentic, or alternatively they're always authentic, in that always their actions are congruent with whatever their motives are at the present time, whether they be congruent with simple motives or with more complex ones. Is that not a form of authenticity? Even if someone is obviously faking being nice to set you up for failure, they're still doing it because they want to on some level, whether it be superficial or a deep-seeded hatred. It's only when one steps back that one perceives anything as being inauthentic, which may just be a form of memory bias -- as in, if you didn't like the emotional outcome in any way, it must have been a problem with 'being authentic to yourself.'

    Also, as another point of clarification. Self-awareness is only one component of authenticity. Though it feeds the others. There are other components as well.
    Explain these other components in detail.

    I still don't understand your problem here. It seems like it is not a medical issue, that is good. Why you "have to" lie in that situation is not clear to me, though.
    I don't think it's a medical issue. I think it's a cognition issue on my part.

    It's a situation that happens to me all the time. I'm talking to somebody about something, and there becomes an argument. This argument goes to a conclusion in which neither of the arguers were right or wrong -- rather, both sides were the same side, only with opposite spins on the issue, as in perhaps, one negative and one positive. Both 'sides' were really the same thing, but accentuated different parts of the argument and primed them with an emotional charge. Rarely is this a good thing to point out, I've discovered -- at this point, it's best off to agree to disagree.

    With memories, it's more or less the same thing. Someone may recall something episodic and ask me if I remember. Because of what they mention, I'm likely to say 'no,' because what they found important about the event is not the same as what I found important about the event. Usually what they think happened has a charge, and mine has another, and this isn't even with events that I would have had reason to cover up initially. I may remember with further prompting, but because what they're saying has the wrong charge, I have to say that I wasn't paying attention, because I didn't find their point particularly interesting, funny, important, or meaningful. It was just something that I skimmed over. The charge is the important part, not the memory itself.

    I don't see this as a problem. It is not a black-and-white situation. You do not need to take all your own interpretation, nor all of that of others. Some churning, discussion and reinterpretation is often very helpful.
    I'm just going to say that I'm just plain uncomfortable with the idea that memory must be used in the search for 'authenticity.' Have you ever heard of sharpening and leveling?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    The point is that 'authenticity' is a charged word. It might be better if we use a lesser-charged word than something like 'authenticity' when referring to something like this. Maybe we should call it 'cupcakes' instead?
    "Cupcakes" connotes something else already. "Authenticity" directs people to the conceptual vicinity of what I would like to discuss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Authenticity... there are a lot of ways one could define it. It could be the understanding of the entire form of a person, or it could be being in touch with one's distilled feelings.
    They're nearly opposites, but authenticity could mean both -- authenticity as in purity of everything that comes along with everything, or authenticity as in staying true to motives. You can't connect the two as being the same, though (as the article seems to try). Also, it could actually mean 'cupcakes,' but that's a more absurd suggestion.
    Yes. The vagueness of the word is meant as part of the discussion, and an important part.

    I personally do not believe the "distilled" feelings are necessarily authentic.

    Distillation is more of a refinement, an adjustment. It may be more "pure" but it is not necessarily authentic. A pure state and an authentic state may become the same, but, as you said, they can often be opposites instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I know what I want to be doing but don't allow myself to do it all the time. To see the 'outside,' as it seems to be described here, and not be able to go to it, would be terrible. It would naturally create a drive to go to the ideal that you now know, but you just plain wouldn't be able to do it. It's awfully cruel, isn't it? Like stringing a carrot in front of a donkey to get him to move.
    There is certainly pain in authenticity. That is why I believe it needs to be an individual judgment. Can you take the existential pain, confusion, and nausea of being authentic? Is it good, or right? I am personally ambivalent on these matters as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Then I am a sociopath.
    I doubt that. Again, I am not talking about complete and total authenticity. Which may not be possible, as you said. But to be devoid of any ability to be authentic...that, I think, makes someone a sociopath.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    The article is describing two different things -- accepting everything, the internal 'mess' of a person, and also figuring out true desires and sticking with them. It doesn't sound like the two can coexist, because once one accepts the 'mess,' one cannot distill what one really wants. It's just too goddamned messy!
    The true self is a moving and multifaceted thing. But being disconnected from it is quite different from being connected to it.

    Take first the analogy of a moving target. If we were to fix (or "stick") our aim on such a target, our aim itself would be moving as well. To pretend that it is fixed would lead to poor aim, even if we were unbiased as to its "central location."

    However, I believe a "target" to be a poor analogy for the true self. To become aware of the true self, what is needed is not necessarily focus, but something different--A diffuse (but quiet or "hushed") awareness.

    Focus is powerful, and has its place. But for self-awareness, relaxation is more appropriate. There is a relaxed focus, and that may do, or it may not. But "hushing" the external forces acting on one's psyche. That is the "goal," or "non-goal," as the case may be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    If one accepts the whole 'mess' as the real you, you can't possibly sort through it and remain authentic in that sense by pulling out something useful, because the useful thing pulled out will have some fake things to make it cohesive, and by leaving out the other 'less important' things is fakery through omission.
    I don't believe "usefulness" or "importance" are necessary parts of self-awareness or authenticity either. Again, they have their place for consideration, but they are different from self-awareness or authenticity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Also, one can go out on a limb and say that it's not that anybody is ever not authentic, or alternatively they're always authentic, in that always their actions are congruent with whatever their motives are at the present time, whether they be congruent with simple motives or with more complex ones. Is that not a form of authenticity? Even if someone is obviously faking being nice to set you up for failure, they're still doing it because they want to on some level, whether it be superficial or a deep-seeded hatred. It's only when one steps back that one perceives anything as being inauthentic, which may just be a form of memory bias -- as in, if you didn't like the emotional outcome in any way, it must have been a problem with 'being authentic to yourself.'
    In many ways this is close to the truth, that we are "always" authentic. But there are some key distinctions.

    Ask yourself the following questions:
    What do I do out of habit, or as a programmed response?
    What do I do of my own volition?
    Who is this, "I," who does the choosing?

    Don't take an intellectual cop-outs of "I have no free-will" or "I choose everything," but identify, one by one, what actions and thoughts are your own, and which ones are trained into you by someone else(and nobody else can tell whether or not you are being truthful). You may or may not be accurate in these assessments. I believe through practice, people can get better at these assessments.

    I personally had gotten away from this practice for many years. Recently (as in the past few days), I returned to it. I find it very calming and peaceful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Explain these other components in detail.
    This is already a long post. But there are volitional and relational components as well. If we can find common ground about self-awareness, we can move on to the details of the other components of authenticity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I don't think it's a medical issue. I think it's a cognition issue on my part.

    It's a situation that happens to me all the time. I'm talking to somebody about something, and there becomes an argument. This argument goes to a conclusion in which neither of the arguers were right or wrong -- rather, both sides were the same side, only with opposite spins on the issue, as in perhaps, one negative and one positive. Both 'sides' were really the same thing, but accentuated different parts of the argument and primed them with an emotional charge. Rarely is this a good thing to point out, I've discovered -- at this point, it's best off to agree to disagree.

    With memories, it's more or less the same thing. Someone may recall something episodic and ask me if I remember. Because of what they mention, I'm likely to say 'no,' because what they found important about the event is not the same as what I found important about the event. Usually what they think happened has a charge, and mine has another, and this isn't even with events that I would have had reason to cover up initially. I may remember with further prompting, but because what they're saying has the wrong charge, I have to say that I wasn't paying attention, because I didn't find their point particularly interesting, funny, important, or meaningful. It was just something that I skimmed over. The charge is the important part, not the memory itself.



    I'm just going to say that I'm just plain uncomfortable with the idea that memory must be used in the search for 'authenticity.' Have you ever heard of sharpening and leveling?
    I am aware of these phenomena. But I think the more important question is how much of the memory leveling is your choice, and how much of it is a habit? I mostly habit, where and when did the habit form, and what is reinforcing it now?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #23
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    "Cupcakes" connotes something else already. "Authenticity" directs people to the conceptual vicinity of what I would like to discuss.
    Eh, it was a joke. A rather poor one, I admit, but even I need some levity sometimes.

    Yes. The vagueness of the word is meant as part of the discussion, and an important part.

    I personally do not believe the "distilled" feelings are necessarily authentic.

    Distillation is more of a refinement, an adjustment. It may be more "pure" but it is not necessarily authentic. A pure state and an authentic state may become the same, but, as you said, they can often be opposites instead.



    There is certainly pain in authenticity. That is why I believe it needs to be an individual judgment. Can you take the existential pain, confusion, and nausea of being authentic? Is it good, or right? I am personally ambivalent on these matters as well.
    The problem I have is that in the article, it is naturally considered 'good.' The only reason I can see it as 'good' is so you can catch yourself as being the idiot you are now and chage to cause less pain from when it comes to bite you in the ass later. Otherwise, no, I don't believe it's worth it at all. There's usually a reason I try to direct my energy outwards -- it's more productive and it's much more comfortable.

    I doubt that. Again, I am not talking about complete and total authenticity. Which may not be possible, as you said. But to be devoid of any ability to be authentic...that, I think, makes someone a sociopath.
    I've got to admit that a lot of that does sound familiar. However, my peers tend to throw around inaccurate information and believe that I'm a lot worse than I really am because I don't talk to them enough. Rather, there's a difference between not respecting someone's rights and respecting their rights too much, but not respecting the person holding the rights, and therefore avoid interaction because you're afraid of how you'd violate those rights with enough close contact.

    I don't think the inability to be authentic makes somebody a sociopath, I think it makes them human. If we were to look at the 'authenticity' of a sociopath, it'd be the same -- just a hell of a lot uglier than your average joe's.



    The true self is a moving and multifaceted thing. But being disconnected from it is quite different from being connected to it.

    Take first the analogy of a moving target. If we were to fix (or "stick") our aim on such a target, our aim itself would be moving as well. To pretend that it is fixed would lead to poor aim, even if we were unbiased as to its "central location."

    However, I believe a "target" to be a poor analogy for the true self. To become aware of the true self, what is needed is not necessarily focus, but something different--A diffuse (but quiet or "hushed") awareness.

    Focus is powerful, and has its place. But for self-awareness, relaxation is more appropriate. There is a relaxed focus, and that may do, or it may not. But "hushing" the external forces acting on one's psyche. That is the "goal," or "non-goal," as the case may be.
    Whatever you say, bud. I'm just saying that filters would make this too inaccurate to be able to find any form of awareness at all. We may have some that are marginally more accurate, but even that would do little, I think, to reach your 'nongoal.'



    I don't believe "usefulness" or "importance" are necessary parts of self-awareness or authenticity either. Again, they have their place for consideration, but they are different from self-awareness or authenticity.
    Perhaps not -- but then, why do these people seem to encourage it so much?

    In many ways this is close to the truth, that we are "always" authentic. But there are some key distinctions.

    Ask yourself the following questions:
    What do I do out of habit, or as a programmed response?
    What do I do of my own volition?
    Who is this, "I," who does the choosing?

    Don't take an intellectual cop-outs of "I have no free-will" or "I choose everything," but identify, one by one, what actions and thoughts are your own, and which ones are trained into you by someone else(and nobody else can tell whether or not you are being truthful). You may or may not be accurate in these assessments. I believe through practice, people can get better at these assessments.
    Oh, I hate the "I have no free-will" argument, even though there's evidence supporting that people make up their minds about seven minutes before they're aware of it. It's a poor argument.

    I think this really depends on the person. It seems like something that should happen naturally. Usually things that are adopted in such a way that they're no longer conscious decisions are either done because they were proven useful a long time ago, or the action itself is heavily symbolic (i.e., becoming a doctor just to please your parents). Only when the action ceases to be useful or the symbolism clashes with what someone really wants does it get any attention, and at that point, it's time to reevaluate. In cases with the symbolism, it may be more useful to keep it, though, because often to people the symbols mean more than the actual substance. It's sad, but it's true.

    Often, I can't tell whether I'm being truthful. I'm a very 'go with your gut' sort of person. Once I start second-guessing my original answer, the whole thing falls to doubt. The questions you ask would not get answers because I'd be too busy thinking about them, and I'd be too distracted by them to notice the world around me, and get run over by the bus that you mentioned earlier.

    I personally had gotten away from this practice for many years. Recently (as in the past few days), I returned to it. I find it very calming and peaceful.
    If it's good for you, kudos, but I'm not searching for peace. I, like most people, only search for it when the chaos becomes a problem. I believe that this is acceptable. There are usually more pressing issues, such as not getting hit by buses.

    This is already a long post. But there are volitional and relational components as well. If we can find common ground about self-awareness, we can move on to the details of the other components of authenticity.
    Yes, but are we ever going to find it?

    I am aware of these phenomena. But I think the more important question is how much of the memory leveling is your choice, and how much of it is a habit? I mostly habit, where and when did the habit form, and what is reinforcing it now?
    I have tried to manipulate memory by choice, it doesn't usually work too well. I'm pretty sure that it's a subconscious phenomena, used to make the memory more accessable.

    If it's subconscious, than what can you do about it?

    In my example, what is not important is the actual memory (even though I often can't remember that either), but rather the charge to it, the emotional charge that they have that I lack for any particular event. I guess because of this, I usually think that mine is more accurate, even if I recall the same event perfectly, because usually to get a point about what happened in the past you must exaggerate, and that's what I figure they're likely to be doing, even if this is perhaps not the case.

    Also, simply by virtue that I'm still alive and well today, I tend to discount most 'bad things' that happened in the past as actually bad, even though this is likely not case considering the phobias I have. There are things that I can learn from these events, of course, but I'm not likely to consider that the things have the charge that people expect of them. I'm not much for nostalgia, either. If I don't have to draw on long-term memory, I don't.

    This is likely what they call 'leveling,' as in things that were important, like my reaction, are downplayed because I'm fine now, so therefore it doesn't matter that I completely acted out then. It's the same as any other memory bias, but that's something that everyone's subjected to.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  4. #24
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Somehow I find that humorous. Be yourself by following our strict instructions on how to find yourself.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #25
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Somehow I find that humorous. Be yourself by following our strict instructions on how to find yourself.
    That might be what doesn't sit right with me.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    The problem I have is that in the article, it is naturally considered 'good.' The only reason I can see it as 'good' is so you can catch yourself as being the idiot you are now and chage to cause less pain from when it comes to bite you in the ass later. Otherwise, no, I don't believe it's worth it at all. There's usually a reason I try to direct my energy outwards -- it's more productive and it's much more comfortable.
    Psychologists like to play up the theory they like. Journalists like to sell ehat they write.

    I posted the article as food for thought.

    As for the worth of such things, I think it becomes more important as you get older. I hate to be a bringer of bad news, but most people who have to support themselves in a job they work for nearing a decade, will go through phases of burn-out and dislike of their work, and there will need to be ways to get back in touch with the true-self.

    U.S. Job Satisfaction Keeps Falling, The Conference Board Reports Today

    At some point, you wont be as fast mentally, or as energetic physically, and this point comes earlier than people anticipate, genetic components notwithstanding.

    There is more than a handful of people in the world who have relationship problems.

    The advise given to people in these (rather common) situations is to get back in touch with their true selves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Whatever you say, bud. I'm just saying that filters would make this too inaccurate to be able to find any form of awareness at all. We may have some that are marginally more accurate, but even that would do little, I think, to reach your 'nongoal.'
    I disagree here. The filters can be lowered quite effectively with practice.


    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Perhaps not -- but then, why do these people seem to encourage it so much?
    Because it can be quite useful in many common situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Oh, I hate the "I have no free-will" argument, even though there's evidence supporting that people make up their minds about seven minutes before they're aware of it. It's a poor argument.

    I think this really depends on the person. It seems like something that should happen naturally. Usually things that are adopted in such a way that they're no longer conscious decisions are either done because they were proven useful a long time ago, or the action itself is heavily symbolic (i.e., becoming a doctor just to please your parents). Only when the action ceases to be useful or the symbolism clashes with what someone really wants does it get any attention, and at that point, it's time to reevaluate. In cases with the symbolism, it may be more useful to keep it, though, because often to people the symbols mean more than the actual substance. It's sad, but it's true.
    It gets a whole lot worse when there is stagnation in ones life. When day after day is the same-- not just for a year, but for years and years---the same cube, the same boss, the same co-workers, the same friends, the same small circle of acquaintances, it is really easy to habituate into a lifestyle that is not at all true to oneself but very comfortable (in terms of creature comforts).

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Often, I can't tell whether I'm being truthful. I'm a very 'go with your gut' sort of person. Once I start second-guessing my original answer, the whole thing falls to doubt. The questions you ask would not get answers because I'd be too busy thinking about them, and I'd be too distracted by them to notice the world around me, and get run over by the bus that you mentioned earlier.
    Truth and authenticity are subtly different in my mind as well. Perhaps you are already very authentic, and hence done feel the need to become more so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    If it's good for you, kudos, but I'm not searching for peace. I, like most people, only search for it when the chaos becomes a problem. I believe that this is acceptable. There are usually more pressing issues, such as not getting hit by buses.
    Chaos is much less a problem than the slow march towards soulless-ness that the corporate world entails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Yes, but are we ever going to find it?
    Hopefully. I rarely fail to find common ground with people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I have tried to manipulate memory by choice, it doesn't usually work too well. I'm pretty sure that it's a subconscious phenomena, used to make the memory more accessable.

    If it's subconscious, than what can you do about it?
    The subconscious can be influenced by the conscious. It is rather indirect, but the influence is powerful in a relaxed state of mind. That's the idea behind self-awareness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    In my example, what is not important is the actual memory (even though I often can't remember that either), but rather the charge to it, the emotional charge that they have that I lack for any particular event. I guess because of this, I usually think that mine is more accurate, even if I recall the same event perfectly, because usually to get a point about what happened in the past you must exaggerate, and that's what I figure they're likely to be doing, even if this is perhaps not the case.
    Well, I cannot really relate to this as a problem. I often don't have mutual understandings with people. I find it pretty common. The events were what actually happened, what you chose (even if subconsciously) to level or sharpen reveals somethings about you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Also, simply by virtue that I'm still alive and well today, I tend to discount most 'bad things' that happened in the past as actually bad, even though this is likely not case considering the phobias I have. There are things that I can learn from these events, of course, but I'm not likely to consider that the things have the charge that people expect of them. I'm not much for nostalgia, either. If I don't have to draw on long-term memory, I don't.
    To each her own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    This is likely what they call 'leveling,' as in things that were important, like my reaction, are downplayed because I'm fine now, so therefore it doesn't matter that I completely acted out then. It's the same as any other memory bias, but that's something that everyone's subjected to.
    Yes. This seems like some natural choices for leveling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Somehow I find that humorous. Be yourself by following our strict instructions on how to find yourself.
    Point taken. Perhaps I should find a good article for counterpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    That might be what doesn't sit right with me.
    OK. I didn't realize how heavily the OP directed the discussion to the article instead of keeping things general.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #27
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default MBTI and Authenticity

    What is fascinating is that MBTI itself is not authentic.

    MBTI says it is a psychometric measure of personality when it is a religious belief.

    It gets even more interesting as not only does MBTI falsely claim to be a psychometric measure but it denies being part of a religion.

    However MBTI is plausible.

    MBTI is believable because it says it is scientific and in the same breath says it is not a religion.

    This is just what we want to hear. And so this is just what we are told.

  8. #28
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Psychologists like to play up the theory they like. Journalists like to sell ehat they write.

    I posted the article as food for thought.

    As for the worth of such things, I think it becomes more important as you get older. I hate to be a bringer of bad news, but most people who have to support themselves in a job they work for nearing a decade, will go through phases of burn-out and dislike of their work, and there will need to be ways to get back in touch with the true-self.

    U.S. Job Satisfaction Keeps Falling, The Conference Board Reports Today

    At some point, you wont be as fast mentally, or as energetic physically, and this point comes earlier than people anticipate, genetic components notwithstanding.

    There is more than a handful of people in the world who have relationship problems.

    The advise given to people in these (rather common) situations is to get back in touch with their true selves.
    But is this advice really the best advice? After doing certain things, people report being more like 'they really are' -- is this really because that happened? Did they really get in touch with their true selves? Or are they just happier? The concept of 'true self,' you say, a painful process with a lot of existentialist angst, does not seem like it would yield such a result.

    This may be the typical advice, but do people actually follow it? Or do they just make themselves happier without following it and just say that it worked?

    I disagree here. The filters can be lowered quite effectively with practice.
    Even if your filters are lowered effectively, what about the filters of others? To label yourself as more unbiased is rather arrogant, don't you think?

    If your own filters are lowered, but those of others are not, well, it leaves you in a rather lonely world, thinking that you know the 'truth' of the matter more easily than others while you still have to live with them. Unless, of course, lowering filters implies conforming.

    It gets a whole lot worse when there is stagnation in ones life. When day after day is the same-- not just for a year, but for years and years---the same cube, the same boss, the same co-workers, the same friends, the same small circle of acquaintances, it is really easy to habituate into a lifestyle that is not at all true to oneself but very comfortable (in terms of creature comforts).
    It sounds like at this point one would just want a way out, rather than a search for 'authenticity.' Authenticity sounds as if it's not a 'way out' but rather a way of understanding the box one has put oneself in.

    Of course there are plenty of ways out, if you're brave enough to take them. Mid-life crises, sabbatical, forcing oneself to do something uncomfortable each day (a la Mark Twain), quitting your job and chasing your dream, finding religion, whatever.

    You can twist these as ways that 'people go searching for authenticity,' or it could be much shallower than that -- people are trying to find their happiness and their fortune. Which doesn't sound like what authenticity will give.

    Truth and authenticity are subtly different in my mind as well. Perhaps you are already very authentic, and hence done feel the need to become more so?
    Perhaps... then again, perhaps not. The human experience is in essence very lonely, with no measure of comparison between people beyond what we can see -- and this is one of the points where I see 'authenticity' failing in its application.

    Chaos is much less a problem than the slow march towards soulless-ness that the corporate world entails.
    This is why I never understood why people went into the corporate world so willingly. It looks to me like a last resort, and yet I see the Young Business Leaguers around every day. At least in lower-level jobs, one is assumed to have other factors of support, but in the corporate world, the job sucks out time with family and friendships and all the joy and pride in your work and whatever else you do. If job satisfaction is so low, why do people do it? I guess that's not so much the question as why do people do it so willingly? Or maybe I'm just too young and naive to understand this, but it all just looks so foreign to me.

    Hopefully. I rarely fail to find common ground with people.

    The subconscious can be influenced by the conscious. It is rather indirect, but the influence is powerful in a relaxed state of mind. That's the idea behind self-awareness.
    Is a relaxed state of mind really achieveable through self-awareness? Maybe if somebody grows into it for long enough, but the two don't naturally seem to go together.

    Well, I cannot really relate to this as a problem. I often don't have mutual understandings with people. I find it pretty common. The events were what actually happened, what you chose (even if subconsciously) to level or sharpen reveals somethings about you.

    To each her own.

    Yes. This seems like some natural choices for leveling.
    It does. I don't see much point in remembering beyond the facts, so everything gets leveled to just about nothing. The emphasis that so many people put on common memories for bonding is disturbing to me...

    Point taken. Perhaps I should find a good article for counterpoint.

    OK. I didn't realize how heavily the OP directed the discussion to the article instead of keeping things general.
    Point and counterpoint would be wise, I think. Presentation is everything.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  9. #29
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default Authenticity and Servility

    The problem with authenticity is that it is not just telling the truth but telling the truth to power.

    And the fact is that telling the truth to power is dangerous so we prefer the comfort of servility.

    And consider, who are we servile to?

    We are servile to the collaborator, Carl Jung, and his disciples Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Meyers.

    And Carl Jung was not only a collaborator but the Guru of the New Age religion.

    And ironically there is nothing new about the New Age religion.

    The New Age religion reached its height in Europe in the first half of the 20th Century.

    And it was much more widespread and much bigger than it is today, particularly in Germany.

    And although Germany lost the war we inherited their missile scientists, the results of medical experiments performed in concentration camps. - and we inherited their Guru, Carl Jung, and his book, "Personality Types".

    "Somatic Types", reified living people into things - into Ayrians, Asians, Negros and Jews. And "Personality Types" was written to complement "Somatic Types".

    But it was left to Jung's disciples, Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers to reify us into four magic letters, such as , INTJ.

    And the purpose of reifying living people is to manipulate them as things.

    So it is in this reification we find our comfort.

    So rather than the moral courage needed for authenticity we choose the comfort of servility.

    Victor.

  10. #30
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    (and I was trying to keep 'type' out of this. So much for that idea. Pff.)
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

Similar Threads

  1. Religious Testimonies & Authenticity
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 12:37 PM
  2. [NF] Authenticity - and how it applies to the NFP
    By Santosha in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 03:11 PM
  3. Authentic happiness test
    By Saslou in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 03:08 PM
  4. Is it possible to change while keeping authentic?
    By Moiety in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-23-2010, 03:02 PM
  5. Authentic Happiness
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 08:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO