When we violate our own moral codes, we are not being true to ourselves. But that doesn't mean we aren't being our true selves. Everything we do is part of our true self - even the bad stuff.
Another way to think of it is the “as if” technique. “If you want a quality,” noted William James, dubbed “the father of American psychology,” “act as if you already had it.”
Given the evolutionary nature of the finding, it's general form should be, only the contents its filled with (what each culture considers fit), might change.
Quite a surprising post. I'd have thought the true self would exist even in opposition to social pressure (such as when you want to do something your peers disapprove of). Obviously your desires are partly the result of peer pressure, and most of us want to be liked, but that contrarian element of being authentic seems different to what's discussed here.
"Doing something your peers disapprove of" is still acting on social pressure, it's conceived based on external influence, only the sign changes.
I'd go on to say there's no mystical untouched authentic self that's not shaped by social forces.
But there's a nuance here: what the post describes is no mere giving in to "social pressure" without qualifications, but to act (or give in, same thing) according to social pressure that's *in corcondance* to how we want others to perceive us.
If we want others to perceive us as rebellious, acting rebellious will feel authentic to us, and doing something comformant wont.
But these authentic feeling acts of rebelliousness while seemingly against "social pressure", are still shaped by social pressure:
- we're not doing what the masses deem comformant (we're still letting them plan our trajectory, we just drive on it on the other direction),
- and we're doing what our peer group and intended social audience (which could be our subculture friends and colleagues) applaud as rebellious.
I think some desires can't actually be attributed to social pressure. To take an obvious example, of course sexual desire is influenced by the culture around us, but people don't seek sex simply in response to social pressure.
Interesting. So much of this, for me, seems to be about behavior. My perspective on behavior is that it is a learned aspect of definition of self. I have always seen "true self" or authenticity of self as being more about personality, and that being a less malleable factor, but being the aggregate of personality and behavior.
Behavior is the only lever to become adjust your presentation for how you want to be presented to others. It is also how you progress to greater accomplishments and life value. But, in my opinion, personality is primarily baked-in... behavior can make some adjustments, but they will be minor.
Sense of self, I think, should be self-awareness and honesty about personality, and then a surrounding practice of behavior that leverages the assets of personality and minimizes the liabilities of personality. That entire package is the authentic self. And it can change as the surrounding practice of behavior progresses... but fundamentally we have a personality that we were born with.
When we violate our own moral codes, we are not being true to ourselves. But that doesn't mean we aren't being our true selves. Everything we do is part of our true self - even the bad stuff.
> Everything we do is part of our true self - even the bad stuff.
That's a tautological take. The post concerns itself more with the deeper psychological perception of our "true self".
Excellent exploration of authenticity and the true self. Would love to read more of your research, thoughts and ideas about it.
Honestly I was surprised when the article ended; it felt premature and like you were just hitting stride at the end of this essay.
I vote for more on this topic — lots to unpack here!
Another way to think of it is the “as if” technique. “If you want a quality,” noted William James, dubbed “the father of American psychology,” “act as if you already had it.”
Do you think this is true across cultures?
Given the evolutionary nature of the finding, it's general form should be, only the contents its filled with (what each culture considers fit), might change.
Quite a surprising post. I'd have thought the true self would exist even in opposition to social pressure (such as when you want to do something your peers disapprove of). Obviously your desires are partly the result of peer pressure, and most of us want to be liked, but that contrarian element of being authentic seems different to what's discussed here.
"Doing something your peers disapprove of" is still acting on social pressure, it's conceived based on external influence, only the sign changes.
I'd go on to say there's no mystical untouched authentic self that's not shaped by social forces.
But there's a nuance here: what the post describes is no mere giving in to "social pressure" without qualifications, but to act (or give in, same thing) according to social pressure that's *in corcondance* to how we want others to perceive us.
If we want others to perceive us as rebellious, acting rebellious will feel authentic to us, and doing something comformant wont.
But these authentic feeling acts of rebelliousness while seemingly against "social pressure", are still shaped by social pressure:
- we're not doing what the masses deem comformant (we're still letting them plan our trajectory, we just drive on it on the other direction),
- and we're doing what our peer group and intended social audience (which could be our subculture friends and colleagues) applaud as rebellious.
I think some desires can't actually be attributed to social pressure. To take an obvious example, of course sexual desire is influenced by the culture around us, but people don't seek sex simply in response to social pressure.
Nice. You are a general psychologist and a very talented one at that.
Interesting. So much of this, for me, seems to be about behavior. My perspective on behavior is that it is a learned aspect of definition of self. I have always seen "true self" or authenticity of self as being more about personality, and that being a less malleable factor, but being the aggregate of personality and behavior.
Behavior is the only lever to become adjust your presentation for how you want to be presented to others. It is also how you progress to greater accomplishments and life value. But, in my opinion, personality is primarily baked-in... behavior can make some adjustments, but they will be minor.
Sense of self, I think, should be self-awareness and honesty about personality, and then a surrounding practice of behavior that leverages the assets of personality and minimizes the liabilities of personality. That entire package is the authentic self. And it can change as the surrounding practice of behavior progresses... but fundamentally we have a personality that we were born with.