What does it mean to "be yourself"

[jcloudz]

dont be fake or pretend to blend in just to be friends. i think honestly that just be yourself is stupid advice

 

[Mole]

Of course it is impossible to be yourself, for each of us is in a state of becoming.

We never know what we are becoming and only discover ourselves in the act of becoming.

We are radically open to the future which also contains our death.

We seek comfort and tell ourselves, just be yourself. This is a hypnotic instruction as it is impossible to carry out, and in trying to carry it out, we repeat it over and over in a loop, and it is that loop which is hypnotic.

And we prefer to be hypnotised or in a trance rather than being fully awake, because in a trance our critical mind goes to sleep, and we can forget the pain of the human condition.

So telling ourselves, just be yourself, over and over again is like counting sheep to put us to sleep. And just look at us asleep: at peace and innocent, like Adam and Eve asleep in the Garden of Eden, before we are woken by the snake of becoming.

 

[Kerik_S]

Probably a bit skewed toward individualism as opposed to collectivism, just making sure you're navigating your ego in terms of favoring your id moreso than your superego.

In a collectivist society, "being yourself" would probably skew more toward superego.

In any case, making sure that your actions align with your implicit (how you feel inside vs. what you talk about "cultivating" outwardly) positive attitudes toward your actions.

That your actions are ego-syntonic (won't create cognitive dissonance when paired alongside thoughts of what you "want to see in yourself"), and that your moments of inaction are rooted in holding off from doing anything ego-dystonic (will create dissonance when paired with self-construct).

　
However, in an individualist society, the individualistically-oriented person will have an extra layer of "Is this ego-syntonic only because I value doing what other people want from me?" in which case they'd have to separate out "ego-syntonic" from superego-syntonic which tends to be an ability that simply being an individualist does not ensure.

Because of this "extra layer", people are pretty lacking in uniformity as to really "clicking" with the advice to "just be yourself".

 

[Kerik_S]

Of course it is impossible to be yourself, for each of us is in a state of becoming.

We never know what we are becoming and only discover ourselves in the act of becoming.

We are radically open to the future which also contains our death.

We seek comfort and tell ourselves, just be yourself. This is a hypnotic instruction as it is impossible to carry out, and in trying to carry it out, we repeat it over and over in a loop, and it is that loop which is hypnotic.

And we prefer to be hypnotised or in a trance rather than being fully awake, because in a trance our critical mind goes to sleep, and we can forget the pain of the human condition.

So telling ourselves, just be yourself, over and over again is like counting sheep to put us to sleep. And just look at us asleep: at peace and innocent, like Adam and Eve asleep in the Garden of Eden, before we are woken by the snake of becoming.

Perhaps it's hypnotic/"sleep"-inducing if it's a rhetorical mantra.

However, we can be aware of our track record and tendencies, and also be aware that-- when we generate a thought/emotion-- every moment, we have a set of implicit and explicit attitudes that are at least temporarily "wired-in" and will interact with novel/conditional thoughts and emotions in predictable ways.

Like... I know from experience which of my attitudes are more resistant to change than others, and I can construct as "objective" an idea as I can at any given moment of "who I am"-- however transient I know that may be.

I can then reasonably predict what kinds of things will be "in-line" with my self-construct as it stands, and that can render a thought like "Just be yourself" to be a rather discreet directive.

　
I would counter the opposing Becoming and Am dichotomy by saying it's a dialectic:

We will change with every mind-moment we encounter, so we are "becoming" and not fixed; however, certain mental and emotional habits are going to reliably stick around without making conscious choices to override them, and we can "lock ourselves in" to a fixed directive (as most people do) without-- as opposed to what most people do-- getting attached to that self in any permanent way.

"Just be yourself" can easily just be shorthand in my mind to mean "just be who I am at this moment, and lock it in for an operable period of time". Without it being some all-or-nothing game to make sure that I never "lock-in" out of fear-- and it is a fear-- of "becoming hypnotized".

　
This would be the "harmony of relative and absolute"-- fixing/locking-in for the purpose of utility and comprehensibility, without losing sight on some level of the absolute truth that the stimuli/phenomena/mental-objects you encounter while "locked" will change you slightly in every individual instance.

Getting attached to either absolute (avoiding "locking in"), or to relative (avoiding "zooming out"), are both equal folly, no matter how distinguished the latter may make the things these absolutists tend to say/think-- they're really only different ("distinguished") because so many people choose the opposite. When it's really about reconciling the "opposites" with a dialectic.

　
So, yes, "Just be yourself" can easily be used in a hypnotic, poisonous way, but they're just words, and people can use them to guide them into fruitful, reconciliatory dialectic actions and cognitive habits.

It's more about the understanding each person has about what the words mean to them-- if their outlook on their "self" is generally fixed, the advice will be trite and rigid and egoistic. If their outlook is flexible "holistic", then the advice will be taken in the overall context of transience-of-self.

 

[Cellmold]

Identity is the thin sausage skin, hiding the true meat within.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

I don't really like that concept, but I understand it. "Being yourself" is doing what you would naturally do, without changing anything to impress people or to "fit in." I don't think it makes much sense, though. If you're casual and laid back, you're still going to dress up and appear professional at a job interview. Why are social situations different?

 

[Mole]

Control and Satisfaction

I confess I am in love with the true self. I maintain my true self even in the most difficult circumstances, and I look forward to opportunities to enjoy and express my true self.

So you can imagine how difficult it is for me to give up my true self. To relinquish what I have fought for so long seems to be madness.

It starts with a touch of madness: I don't know what to do. So immediately I try to decide what to do. But something within me calls to me to follow the path of not knowing what to do.

Once I decide to follow the path of not knowing what to do, to follow the cloud of unknowing, I feel an intense and sharp fear. This fear is a survival instinct in the face of losing control.

But once I have given up control and accepted my intense fear, I can do nothing but listen to what my deeper self wants to say. All I can do is simply listen, because I have no control.

So why would I follow this madness? I follow my deeper self to find complete satisfaction.

I was in love with my true self, but am I in love with my deeper self? No, I am not in love with my deeper self. I was in love with my true self, and I also controlled my true self; but I am not in love with my deeper self because my deeper self is larger than myself, my deeper self is other than myself. And my deeper self rewards me with satisfaction.

So I have exchanged control for satisfaction.

 

[Coriolis]

In order to be yourself, you must first know yourself, and that is the hardest part of all.

I don't really like that concept, but I understand it. "Being yourself" is doing what you would naturally do, without changing anything to impress people or to "fit in." I don't think it makes much sense, though. If you're casual and laid back, you're still going to dress up and appear professional at a job interview. Why are social situations different?

They are no different, they just have different goals. No one is a "single issue person". Each one of us is complex, with many sometimes contradictory traits and inclinations. Assume your casual, laid back person is also determined to get a particular kind of job, for whatever his reasons are. You say if he dresses the part, he is not being true to himself, presumably the "casual, laid back" part. I say if he dresses casually, he is not being true to the part of himself that wants this particular kind of work. He has to reconcile these aspects of himself, as do we all. Perhaps his idea of dressy is something far short of a 3-piece suit. Perhaps he is willing to tolerate dressing up for the interview, but knows he cannot work in an environment where he is expected to wear a suit and tie every day. Sooner or later, his employer will figure out that he is at heart casual and laid back.

 

[Roars]

I think it means going with things that align with your nature - putting yourself in situations, meeting people, etc that are beenficial for your growth as a person, sticking to your values, overall freeing yourself from tension. I think that Taoism as a pihlosophy does a good job of facilitating this

 

[Mole]

The Tao of Pooh

I think it means going with things that align with your nature - putting yourself in situations, meeting people, etc that are beenficial for your growth as a person, sticking to your values, overall freeing yourself from tension. I think that Taoism as a pihlosophy does a good job of facilitating this

The Tao of who? The Tao of Pooh, click on http://portalsso.vansd.org/portal/p...AB2042857/Benjamin Hoff - The Tao of Pooh.pdf

 

[Thalassa]

Being yourself is to be authentically creative in a capacity which has no limits on others role expectations for you. Like you don't have to be a "nice girl" you can in fact be a "bad girl" and say it's not bad but just expression of self. Fi types seem to understand this better than most types, it's officially our basic intellectual capacity, which is probably why Fi can also be associated with aesthetics. Of course more mature /advanced Fi takes on a philosophical quality which challenges Fe in an impersonal way that can benefit greater humanity. But even the most basic Fi bitch wants to be themselves outside of extrenal chosen roles, though Fi types may also behave in a way that is polite or caring of others feelings, it doesn't repress the actual creative self expression ultimately. And for very average types this doesn't necessarily mean they are artists, but they just embrace their own quirks, their sexual expression, and I think Fi may be more comfortable with seeing that opposite gendered behavior doesn't necessarily make them the opposite gender...I think this is probably why gender isn't solved problem for me, maybe I'm only so comfortable with being female because as a child I was allowed to just be whatever I was as a person, so as an adult there was no identity crisis - I'm not trying to sound like an asshole, but yes a part of me believes that there are SO many Trans women rather than Trans men is because less men are "allowed" to be girly in childhood or adolescence, while not all but more girls are allowed to act or play at being boys without long term consequences (that's why I'm not a radical feminist though I'm a feminist, I see how much patriarchy hurts boys, then hurts women later by proxy).

I think Prince was a great example of Being Yourself.

 

[Forever]

Well being the opposite of who you are isn't exactly all clear either. Let's say I'm naturally introverted and I'm on a date (which I had to exert myself to even ask you) and I would have to be extroverted in being interested in things around me and you especially. When it is my most natural setting to be interested on the nature of ideas and things apply to me. So you could talk about yourself all day and then the person who told you to be yourself was rather annoyed lol and the date goes terrible.

So yeah, like worse advice. I think what they mean by be yourself is just be comfortable around me, don't freak out. Which is telling someone to relax.

Still a terrible way.

 

[Coriolis]

Well being the opposite of who you are isn't exactly all clear either. Let's say I'm naturally introverted and I'm on a date (which I had to exert myself to even ask you) and I would have to be extroverted in being interested in things around me and you especially. When it is my most natural setting to be interested on the nature of ideas and things apply to me. So you could talk about yourself all day and then the person who told you to be yourself was rather annoyed lol and the date goes terrible.

You are thinking too narrowly. People are more than introversion, or adventure-seeking, or wearing their heart on their sleeve. Each of us represents a complete picture of traits, preferences, idiosyncrasies, goals, and values. Sometimes these are even contradictory. You cannot therefore measure how well someone is "being him/herself" by seeing how faithfully they act like an introvert. This quality may be overridden by some other quality or value in the moment, as in your example when someone overcomes introversion to have companionship or the possibility of romance.

It is when every day, in every encounter you have to push your personal envelope like that that you are not being yourself. Sure, you take that extraverted step to set up a date and start getting to know the other person, but even in that initial meeting, your true introversion will and should come out, unless you are trying too hard to suppress it. This is good, because if your date really is bothered by it, better to know right off than to string them along for weeks under false pretenses.

To be yourself, however, requires first and foremost that you know yourself, and especially understand any contradictions or competing impulses so you can make the best choices when one must give to another.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Trusting my intuition and heart, being selective and fair to myself. Not being trapped by apparences and society tricks. Respecting what I like/dislike.

 

[IndigoViolet11]

I am blured by whether which really is a self at times. They are default self contradictory in a way that you have to give up something for something. After all it was never a fred for all, neither anyone wanted a complete mess.

 

[Generalist]

hmmmmmmm, interesting question. "be yourself", clearly we all know that means live your own life, do what you want, don't follow the crowd, blah blah blah, right up there with popular phrases like follow your passion or do what you love and the money will follow, blah blah blah. It is interesting that they tell you that and at the same time some cultures de-value certain qualities that individuals might have. Unfortunately even the most independent of us are not completely immune to our cultural values. And what about the negative sides of ourselves, we all have a natural talent for certain vices and some of those vices are encouraged by the culture. I suppose if you want to venture out into more "spiritual" interpretations, you could say to follow your particular calling or mission or whatever. I initially, on this level, I would say that being yourself, would be to follow your instincts, your natural programming, at least the positive side of it, but who is to say what is positive and what is not, some people want to be writers and those they know, think that is a waste of time, they should have taken that marketing job with the lipstick company, but the writer thinks that isn't valuable because he feels it is feeding into narcissism and sexism with women's preoccupation with changing their features. So I guess, one would decide or let culture decide what is bad, suppress that and enhance positive natural qualities. I like to think of it from a natural perspective. The wolf contributes to the environment, not by trying to be an elk or a coyote or a bobcat, it is a wolf, carries out its instincts and by doing fits properly into the natural order of its ecosystem and not only fits in, but improves it, just by being a wolf. So I like to think by being yourself, you fit into your ecosystem or the world ecosystem and make significant contributions by following these instincts that are deemed positive. It is like a chain effect. But take it further, could be yourself be things that are at the core of humanity, creativity, a need for relationships, etc.... those huge linking core characteristics and to stick with the spiritual stuff, shouldn't being ourselves also possibly be considered trying to get as close to your divine force as you can, whether that is God, enlightenment, multiple gods, etc...... I wonder too, if be yourself could be actually be dangerous advice. Could it actually be feeding in some cultures an already rampant and destructive individualism. That in some countries or in much smaller contexts, this be yourself attitude and this focus just on me attitude, means don't give a fuck about anyone else and once we start breaking off on our own like that, we greatly weaken ourselves, we reach our true growth by being ourselves and by being with others, that this pride that we don't need anyone else is quite destructive to us. That we need can only achieve this state of "being ourselves" by being part of a group, culture or whatever, that we need others to become ourselves, that we need the group, to become part of it, to become ourselves. So be yourself might be better said, as "be yourself, so you can be part of the group"

 

[Blackout]

I was thinking about this lately and generally it would seem that throughout human history and civilization, individuality is generally frowned upon and is not in anyway very accepted or liked.

How in anyway has it ever really been okay or open to like those who are different are quite often shamed and ostracized they not?


Generally, those who feel the need or who were born with a strong sense of self and perhaps equally a need to express it, often are the one's who become artists for that reason; and it is the artists that are often considered the "outsiders" of the world.

 

[Mole]

I was thinking about this lately and generally it would seem that throughout human history and civilization, individuality is generally frowned upon and is not in anyway very accepted or liked.

This is true.

But why is it true?

It is true because for 200,000 years we lived in tribes with spoken cultures where we all lived in earshot of each other and all felt the same things at the same time, and then in 1440 we invented the printing press and changed the world.

With the printing press we printed all our manuscripts into book form. And unlike the manuscripts our books were not read aloud, they were read privately, individually, and so we became literate individuals for the first time in 200,000 years.

And whereas spoken, tribal cultures are engaged with each other all the time, the literate individual is disengaged both emotionally and intellectually, and counter-intuitive thinking rose to create the modern world.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

I heard one reaction to this that said "If you're looking for real self-improvement, don't believe all that "be yourself, love yourself" crap. Instead, strive to be someone you value".

Honestly, I don't see how that advice is any more useful than "be yourself".

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Doing the things you value and that make you happy despite what others think of it.