• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Authenticity

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
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?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
"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.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Somehow I find that humorous. Be yourself by following our strict instructions on how to find yourself.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
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.

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.


Perhaps not -- but then, why do these people seem to encourage it so much?

Because it can be quite useful in many common situations.

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).

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?

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.

Yes, but are we ever going to find it?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
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.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
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.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
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.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
(and I was trying to keep 'type' out of this. So much for that idea. Pff.)
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
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.
The irony of this being posted by an INTJ is delicious :D
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
MBTI Works for Miilions of People

The irony of this being posted by an INTJ is delicious :D

The irony is not of my making - I was described as an INTJ - so I adopted it - like a nickname.

However it is all beside the point. Because you can accept MBTI as a given or you can step outside the given or taken for granted - you can transcend MBTI.

And you step outside MBTI in exactly the same way you step outside of any religious belief.

First you learn the history of the belief and this will give you a pretty good idea of how it fits into society.

Then you look at its psychological structure to see what needs it is meeting.

Then you ask what is the evidence for this belief.

This is like the process of waking up from the trance of MBTI.

However waking up from MBTi presents social problems because MBTI is so widely accepted and used.

So to wake up from MBTI is to wake up from a vast social trance - you will find yourself alone and cast on your own resources.

To realise that MBTI is just pseudo-science and part of the New Age religion is to become a lonely dissident - with all the dangers associated with that.

So really we are left with the question, is it better to be a believer like everyone else or is it better to be a lonely sceptic.

On the balance of probabilities it is better to be a believer but only if you protect yourself by denying that MBTI is a religious belief.

It works for millions of people, why not you?

Victor.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
The irony is not of my making - I was described as an INTJ - so I adopted it - like a nickname.

However it is all beside the point. Because you can accept MBTI as a given or you can step outside the given or taken for granted - you can transcend MBTI.

And you step outside MBTI in exactly the same way you step outside of any religious belief.

First you learn the history of the belief and this will give you a pretty good idea of how it fits into society.

Then you look at its psychological structure to see what needs it is meeting.

Then you ask what is the evidence for this belief.

This is like the process of waking up from the trance of MBTI.

However waking up from MBTi presents social problems because MBTI is so widely accepted and used.

So to wake up from MBTI is to wake up from a vast social trance - you will find yourself alone and cast on your own resources.

To realise that MBTI is just pseudo-science and part of the New Age religion is to become a lonely dissident - with all the dangers associated with that.

So really we are left with the question, is it better to be a believer like everyone else or is it better to be a lonely sceptic.

On the balance of probabilities it is better to be a believer but only if you protect yourself by denying that MBTI is a religious belief.

It works for millions of people, why not you?

Victor.
What is science itself if not a religion based on the belief that we can fathom the universe from our single standpoint?

It's all a crapshoot to me. I just thought it was ironic that an INTJ would be commenting on the whole science/ religion aspect due to the oft used fight of trying to force a decision to be "right" by sheer belief in the reasoning behind it... That just tickled my funny bone is all.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
A Silk Purse from a Sow's Ear

What is science itself if not a religion based on the belief that we can fathom the universe from our single standpoint?

It's all a crapshoot to me. I just thought it was ironic that an INTJ would be commenting on the whole science/ religion aspect due to the oft used fight of trying to force a decision to be "right" by sheer belief in the reasoning behind it... That just tickled my funny bone is all.

You do have a nice sense of humour.

However I do think it is important to distinguish between a scientific idea and a religious belief.

A religious belief can't be falsified by evidence while scientific ideas are regularly and often, as a matter of course, falsified by evidence.

A religious belief is part of our common mythos. And it is mythos that confers meaning to a society - the mythos gives meaning to life.

But a scientific idea can't give meaning to a society because it is merely provisional.

However the waters have been muddied because the religious impulse has taken the kudos of science and created pseudo-science, like MBTI.

So now we have science and pseudo-science. And pseudo-science is a religious belief because it can't be falsified.

We have tried to create mythos, that is meaning, out of science.

It is like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Victor.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
You do have a nice sense of humour.

However I do think it is important to distinguish between a scientific idea and a religious belief.

A religious belief can't be falsified by evidence while scientific ideas are regularly and often, as a matter of course, falsified by evidence.

A religious belief is part of our common mythos. And it is mythos that confers meaning to a society - the mythos gives meaning to life.

But a scientific idea can't give meaning to a society because it is merely provisional.

However the waters have been muddied because the religious impulse has taken the kudos of science and created pseudo-science, like MBTI.

So now we have science and pseudo-science. And pseudo-science is a religious belief because it can't be falsified.

We have tried to create mythos, that is meaning, out of science.

It is like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Victor.
Just to reduce that to it's parts, "anything which cannot be proved to be false or true is false or faith"?

As I see it science uses a lot of faith, such as the substituted character for the square root of minus one, the reliance on the unexplained properties of gravity. How long have we gone on thinking Einstein was right...well right and then wrong to be pernickerty?

The main difference between science and religion, as far as I can tell, is that fewer people take science to heart and take it personally if you challenge their faith in a theory or two. Also science is continually being challenged as part of it's own mantra. Perhaps faith should do likewise?

Anyhow I digress, the idea that something must be verifiable to be determined as anything other than faith also qualifies a lot of the scientific pursuits into that realm also....such as the much vaunted Mr Hawking and his black holes.. how the hell they intend to prove that without direct observation I do not know.

Anyhow when the world was flat it was unproven and yet accepted. The fact that it was later disproven has no impact on that times faith in it's science. Also though you can challenge science you'd have to be damned good or else you'd only be sneered at. Personally I figure that science is merely a more flexible religion. It has changed with the times.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I had lost the patience to post. But I got in in reasonable time :D

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?

Like many things, there is period of toil and pain before the pay-off. One definite thing about it is that it makes for "Creative Tension," which can be good thing despite the anxiety felt when there is that tension.

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?

I don't think there is a good way to compare authenticity between two different people. Labeling oneself as anything, may or may not be arrogant.

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.

Quite frankly, I don't think you can tell if others lower their filters or not. These are two different settings. I believe the one you are talking about is a social one. I am referring to a personal one.

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.

The problem is, people take their boxes with them when they do these things. Often, switching jobs doing something different, etc. does nothing to satisfy, and does not create a way out. People take their emotional baggage with them.

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.

They may or may not be searching for authenticity. It depends on how much baggage they take with them.


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.

It fails in its application in comparison between people because that is not where it is intended.

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.

What are the other choices? Starting your own business, or working for a small-family business?

Some professions have little choice in this matter.

The state has all the issues of the corporate world and more. Small businesses have to deal with corporations and government all the time. There may be a small buffer, but no real escape.

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.

I would say a relaxed state of mind is a pre-requisite. What follows, will be strange and perhaps painful. One achieves authenticity through relaxation, not the other way around.

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...

What would you suggest they bond over?

Point and counterpoint would be wise, I think. Presentation is everything.

Prozac Nation maybe a personal look at the painful side of things. I haven't actually read it.

It is hard to test out lists with the current state of the server. But I can provide more later.

As for what followed regarding MBTI amd authenticity. I will need to read further to catch up. Not sure how long that will take.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Ygolo, I'm just going to say this.

This is taking what is and making a human interpretation. Human interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Even if somebody were 'authentic' they could not possibly be perceived as such by themselves because of this flawed perception.

The longer I speak, the more I lie. The more I'm not sure of what I'm saying. And the more it's impossible to tell. What you're describing is a paradox. As soon as we're aware of 'what's there,' as authenticity states, we are no longer aware. Awareness ruins it. If you wreck it by finding it, then why find it?
 

placebo

New member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
492
MBTI Type
INFP
What I first thought of by 'authenticity' and what I think they might be trying to get at corresponds with Maslow's self-actualized person.

You could say it's the thing that everyone ultimately strives for if you look at his Hierarchy of Needs. (Image:Maslow's hierarchy of needs.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


From this site: Maslow's Hierarchy, Societal Change and the Knowledge Worker Revolution.

Maslow described the characteristics of the Self-Actualized Person as follows:

Are realistically oriented
Accept other people for what they are
Are spontaneous in thinking, emotions, and behavior
Are problem-centered rather than self-centered
Need privacy
Are autonomous, independent, and able to remain true to themselves in the face of rejection or unpopularity
Have a continuous freshness of appreciation
Have mystic or oceanic experiences although not necessarily religious
Identify with mankind
Have deep meaningful relationships with a few people
Have a democratic structure and judge people as individuals
Have highly developed ethics
Resist total conformity to culture

And this site (Self-Actualization: The Peak of Human Achievement) explains some characteristics more.


Looking at the rules they gave
1. Read Novels
2. Meditate
3. Be Deliberate
4. But Not Too Deliberate
5. Cultivate Solitude
6. But Stay Connected
7. Play hard
8. Be Willing to Lose
They seemed kind of stupid at first glance... read novels, meditate, be deliberate but not too deliberate?... without having been given explanations, but I guess you would say these rules correspond to having privacy, thinking carefully, and being mindful and self-aware--characteristics of a self-actualized person.

I think being authentic involves reaching a highly developed understanding of morality and the ability to be accepting, being in touch with reality at a healthy level, being 'true to yourself' and independent.
 
Last edited:

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Ygolo, I'm just going to say this.

This is taking what is and making a human interpretation. Human interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Even if somebody were 'authentic' they could not possibly be perceived as such by themselves because of this flawed perception.

Yes. Perhaps ultimate authenticity, as well as ultimate truth are unattainable goals. But so is ultimately being alive. We will all die. It is a futile attempt to do anything, then, because none of it counts for anything. There isn't any "use" for it (that is anything at all) so why bother?

Ironically, the acceptance of the unattainability of these "ultimates" and still continuing is part of what many Buddhists believe to be part of enlightenment.

The longer I speak, the more I lie. The more I'm not sure of what I'm saying. And the more it's impossible to tell. What you're describing is a paradox. As soon as we're aware of 'what's there,' as authenticity states, we are no longer aware. Awareness ruins it. If you wreck it by finding it, then why find it?

There is duality here, true. But the contradiction only occurs when you pursue ultimates to an extreme. They serve as guide-posts, not as ends for themselves.


As placebo mentioned, this is part of the connection between self-awareness and self-actualization. The unattainability of the self serves as one's strong inner drive, and the acceptance of the unattainability serves to keep one grounded.

What's more, we carry the self with us where ever we go, while living. There is no way to get away, there is no way out of that situation, while we are still alive.
 

Councilor

New member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
24
MBTI Type
ISTP
I have my own set of rules that I live by. Some of these agree with them, some of them don't.

As for the eight rules:

1. Read Novels
Limiting. I culture myself with a broader scope in the modern era. I read whatever I chance upon. I watch what movies I chance upon. I enjoy gaming. Everything inanimate is an experience.

2. Meditate
I had my mid-life crisis at 22 and I've done soul searching since.

3. Be Deliberate
When I do something, it is intentional and it counts.

4. But Not Too Deliberate
Be extreme, but not too extreme. This statement is off my plate.

5. Cultivate Solitude
I live as a recluse unless something requires my person in public.

6. But Stay Connected
Read above.

7. Play hard
Don't get bored, wasted time is by my choice.

8. Be Willing to Lose
I'm willing to lose only if in a friendly match or if it means I will learn something. In competition it is to push me to win.

[Edit] The word authenticity doesn't taste right. It tastes like a rubber band snapping around in the mouth and jumping around. I don't like it.
 
Top