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.”
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.
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.
Good weigh-in on what constitutes our "true self". The problem with the word "true" is that some essence seems to be inferred, but in this case it is something that arises out of our encounter with specific social circumstances and that can be articulated in language. Of course that which meets those social circumstances already brings a lot to the table, but such a "true self" is never encountered in isolation from any context. Neither a complete "social construct" or some pristine inner essence manifesting itself. How we turn out to be is always an accommodation, and the "essence" of human existence is that we have to harmonize what we bring to the table with what kind of tables we find and can make. Finding out that there are better and worse ways to harmonize is what agency is about, and it makes sense that better feels truer.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Do you think this is true across cultures?
Nice. You are a general psychologist and a very talented one at that.
Good weigh-in on what constitutes our "true self". The problem with the word "true" is that some essence seems to be inferred, but in this case it is something that arises out of our encounter with specific social circumstances and that can be articulated in language. Of course that which meets those social circumstances already brings a lot to the table, but such a "true self" is never encountered in isolation from any context. Neither a complete "social construct" or some pristine inner essence manifesting itself. How we turn out to be is always an accommodation, and the "essence" of human existence is that we have to harmonize what we bring to the table with what kind of tables we find and can make. Finding out that there are better and worse ways to harmonize is what agency is about, and it makes sense that better feels truer.
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.