We usually hear that being “authentic” is to “be yourself”, as opposed to “pretending”. But consider some clues about authenticity: People who believe they’re behaving authentically are less distressed and have higher self-esteem. … Feeling inauthentic in one’s dealings with other people correlates with symptoms of depression. … Women … report much greater feelings of personal authenticity in their romantic relationships than men do, and as teens, they’re more likely than boys to say that they can be themselves with their best friends. On the other hand, teen boys report feeling more authentic with their dads than teen girls do—and young men say they feel more authentic around professors than their female classmates do. … When adults … were asked how authentic they felt in the presence of various people, work colleagues came in dead last. (
Sounds a lot like the self-aware commentary in Luigi Pirandello's One, No One and One Hundred Thousand.
Have you read it? What were your thoughts on the book's relevance now?
From the study:
"Authenticity is achieved by expressing Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect in one’s behavior."
One way to view this is that these traits are "right" in some way.
Yes, I understand your objection, but I've always liked Polonius' advice anyway.
The heroic case I had in mind is where the person "went on adrenaline" and simply acted without thought. He doesn't have a motive to disown his behavior, which conforms to his ideals.
I don't think authenticity has much at all to do with far-mode ideals (or with spontaneity, for that matter). That's part of why many find so suspect ethics that value authenticity: authenticity is counterposed to other far-mode values. (So you can't define it in their terms.)
People discover all the time that they can derive deep feelings of authenticity by violating their deepest far-mode values. (As well as by deviating from spontaneous routine.) This may be most evident in the spheres of sex and art.
hmm did you ask your self ? do you are real?did some one tell you to be your self .because just like this you winn ?so if some comment are out from the hypocrisy culture this mean not ''real you''?do you know how every character human work?''ME '' ALWAYS WORKING MY MIND WITH MORAL AND HIGH LOGIC WITH PEOPLE SERIOSE AND REAL ( FULL FEELING RESPECT ) EVEN IN COMMENT WITH PEOPLE CHARLATAN AND NOT REAL (CARTOON) BE THE SAME .YOU GET IT ? if one smart person work like you thinking ( to pire to potami)th u
I think you answered your own comment: people can feel inauthentic when performing some act that superficially is very idealistic for them but which was actually performed in a way that doesn't really match the person's ideals. Usually only the superficial act, the stereotype, is communicated to others.
Example: with a lot of danger to your own life you kill a terrorist and save a lot of lives in the process but in the heat of the moment you realized your primary motivation actually was personal hatred for the terrorist, not saving all those innocent lives. You get called a hero and your action was superficially heroic but you are disappointed in yourself and feel inauthentic.
If you have examples of feeling inauthentic when it has nothing to do with disappointing about not living up to far mode ideals (or disappointment about not being able to act in a way that comes natural) I'd like to hear them (I really would), because I simply cannot recall any instance where I or people I know have felt inauthentic without it being about disappointment.
But people also might say (or if they don't say it, know it true) they weren't themselves when they do things that are exceptional. Acts of bravery.
Most acts of bravery and acts of malice are highly stereotyped. They fail to express uniqueness, even if the former accords with far-mode ideals.
Perhaps you, IMASBA, feel most authentic when you are being idealistic, but it isn't the case for all folks.
Counterexample: a serial killer who feels authentic only when committing murder.
OK, but Shakespeare wrote Polonius as a pompous windbag. Not a very good idea to quote him sincerely.
Because, if a person aims for consistent acceptance, he won't engage in self-consistent behavior.
The results (and discussion) in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... are particularly important:
"the data consistently supported the statecontent significance hypothesis, such that increases in state Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Intellect were accompanied by increases in authenticity."
Combining Robin's conjecture with this result, the implication is that basic personality traits are (contrary to how usually conceived) unipolar: Agreeableness, etc., not Disagreeableness, etc., are high status. The results indicate that the Big Five Traits linearly correlate with behavior that feels authentic.
But I don't think it's the case that the more Agreeable or the more Introverted, the higher the status. So, I must disagree with Robin that authenticity is respected/accepted conduct.
Let me try a slightly more idealistic hypothesis, which is in line with one mentioned by Sheldon, which is that the "positive" end of the Big Five support "autonomy":
"Authenticity" is experienced when our conduct most expresses our uniqueness. (We don't express our uniqueness best when we act like we do routinely.)
[Added.] The drive to be authentic might be explained as energizing the signaling of where a person has comparative advantage.
Why can't the consistent person you see in these comments be the person they chose to be, as the one that is most consistently accepted?
Well, there is a whole line of research going in the direction of a "context-dependent personality" or "context-sensitive self". If you search these terms, or if you go by author and search articles by say, Diener et al, you'll find a lot on that, how it influences subjective well-being, and how it varies between cultures. Say, recently, some articles by Suh et al indicate that East Asians have a more context sensitive self perception than US-Americans. Specifically, if people are experimentally primed with different social roles, the self-description of their own personality changes. It may change more in East Asians than in Americans, but it changes in all people.
I think there are more apt Shakespearean quotes, such as:
All the world's a stage,And all the men and women merely players.They have their exits and their entrances,And one man in his time plays many parts
I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano;A stage where every man must play a part,And mine a sad one.
We feel "authentic" when playing some roles but not others, and Robin wants to know when that feeling arises.
Robin isn't making a claim about whether people are discernably the same most of the time. His claim is about what causes us to *feel* as if we're acting like ourselves, whatever that means.