I think it's pretty clear that the author doesn't really understand what "be yourself" means. Or he's using some weird academic/business school definition.
It doesn't mean that you let your Id rule and disrespect everyone around you. It means to do things natural to you and in line with your instincts.
Have you ever seen a really effective kindergarten teacher? Or salesman? Or engineer? They are naturally inclined to do what they do and have the instincts through education and experience to just do what others need to think about.
The example of the general manager at HP was a great one. Being a genuine and sincere person, even with subordinates is fine in a small setting. But when you're addressing 5000 employees, its formal by necessity and you're not speaking as you -- you're an officer of the company.
I think it's great when people don't try to be someone else. One of the people who I mentored for awhile started out as a real jerk... he almost got fired for attitude. It turned out that he was in the wrong role, an operational, follow the process role that was stifling to him and driving people crazy. We recognized that, got him in a better gig and he shined. If he had sucked it up and marched like a good soldier, I never would have known.
> I think it's pretty clear that the author doesn't really understand what "be yourself" means
Well of course. As a phrase, it's meaning isn't clear just from the words in the same way that "give me that pen", "make your bed soon after waking up", or "brush your teeth twice a day" are. All of those scentences are made of phrases and words that have meanings and the meaning of the scentence follows from composing the meanings of its parts.
"Be yourself" as a piece of advice has a literal meaning equivalent to "breathe and metabolize"-- a person is by definition themselves. So the phrase must mean something other than it's literal meaning, but what?
As an adolescent, the only explanation I ever got was "don't try to be something you're not". The problem here, is that it contradicts so much other advice in your life. As an example, 16-year-old me was a shitty driver. Should I have stopped trying to be so shitty at driving? Of course! The phrase argues against growth in general and I'd seen people use it as an excuse to avoid growth. So 16-year-old me concluded that the advice was meaningless and that the people saying it weren't saying much of anything besides "chill out, relax".
But considering who poorly explained it is and how often it is given as grand life advice, it isn't at all surprising to hear someone else take a drastically different meaning from it.
It's mostly supposed to mean "grow toward (and in the mean-time, fake being) the person you'd be most excited to be if all social knock-on effects were disregarded." Likely, this is a version of yourself improved along all the axes that will most enhance the sense of natural, intuitive engagement you feel when doing the things you love.
It can also be phrased more directly as: "don't grow toward (or fake being) a version of yourself that you imagine will benefit you socially, if that hypothetical person does not also feel more engaged with, and excited about, being alive."
(Or, in short: if you really love [fun activity] and hate [boring activity], don't pretend to love [boring activity] or hate [fun activity] just to impress someone. Because you'll still love [fun activity] and hate [boring activity], but now you'll be forced to deal with [boring activity] all day while carefully avoiding [fun activity].)
...
That being said, this advice is nearly meaningless to children or teenagers, because it really can't mean anything until you 1. know what engages you, and 2. have enough life experience to build an intuition for what sort of things you might grow to love.
It's sort of the same as the advice "write what you know": it only means something when you actually know (i.e. have lived through) at least one thing worth writing down.
> It's mostly supposed to mean "grow toward (and in the mean-time, fake being) the person you'd be most excited to be if all social knock-on effects were disregarded."
This is basically why I hate "be yourself". It's a tip most often given to people who are socially awkward or insecure, but the intended message is subtle and not present in the actual statement. It's advice that's least clear to the people who need it most.
It's kind of fascinating to watch these conversations unfold, because you can see in real time what hoops people have had to jump through to make the phrase have value when it clearly, on its face, doesn't carry that value.
It's one of those phrases that people eventually understand to mean something useful, but where that meaning isn't communicated by the phrase itself. People continue to propagate it because it's the "handle" they have for that idea, and they think that because they now have a meaning associated with it, that will make the words magically communicate said meaning to the person they're speaking to.
The best version of this I've ever heard was something along the lines of: "Dont try to beat Mark Zuckerberg at being Mark Zuckerberg, he'll always win." What I take from that is that the way to compete is to build a successful business, not to be someone in particular. When we compete, we each have our own set of strengths and weaknesses. I have mine and Mark Zuckerberg has his. What that means is that I have strengths where he has weakness. Why would I not apply that strength? Just to be more like him? A simple example is that I understand that people (for better or worse) judge you for how you look. Therefore, I dont go into professional meeting with people I dont know wearing a t-shirt and jeans.
Hang on, a simple example of not trying to be Zuckerberg is not wearing shirts and jeans to meetings?
(I didn't know he does that, but I guess you can do whatever you like in his position. Just look at what he's doing with our data and valuable human attention.)
I think the point is that you shouldn't dress in a certain way for a certain occasion because some idol does it. You should understand why they dress like they do and why it works (or doesn't) and then make up your own mind what makes sense for you.
Breaking the rules can be very powerful, but if you're showing up to a VC meeting in a bathrobe, you damn well better be bringing the next Facebook with you.
In the most common usage "be yourself" means "don't be fake", or "don't try to be like someone you think you're supposed to be."
This phrase is more complement than advice. The intent of the person saying it is, "I like you, and others will like you too."
Occasionally, but far less common, it is actually meant as advice. This might happen when the person saying it has seen you (or someone like you) being stiff, awkward, or overly self-conscious when attempting some new skill. In this context it can be interpreted as, "don't stress", "don't over think it", or "you can do it any way you like."
It's one of those phrases that only has meaning in the context of the person speaking, like the greeting "how are you doing?" (usually not an actual question, in the US).
In most cases you can safely disregard it.
Personally, I usually choose to interpret it as "relax, you're doing great," and if I ever say it that's how I mean it.
How so? Is who you are as a person one who stagnates? To me it would seem you have it backwards. Being a 16 year old shitty driver and pretending that you have nothing to learn about driving would be against growth. Being a 16 year old shitty driver who knows they are shit is being yourself. Hopefully wanting to get better is a part of who you are, so you do that too.
Being yourself is two things. Being honest about your knowledge, capabilities, and goals. Set your own goals according to your own desires and needs, not those forced on you by others.
>Have you ever seen a really effective kindergarten teacher? Or salesman? Or engineer? They are naturally inclined to do what they do and have the instincts through education and experience to just do what others need to think about.
I disagree, certainly great salespeople, teachers and engineers make what they do seem natural and effortless, but whenever I talk to them I discover that they put a lot of thought, effort and practice into molding themselves until their craft seems natural. In fact, Tom Hopkins, one of the greatest salespeople who has written several sales books told about how he didn't seem like the person who was right for the job, and he was making no sales, but then he decided to research, work and practice until he got good at it.
In fact I believe this whole thing about "be yourself" or "be true to yourself" is a bunch of modernest rubbish. There is no "true self" to be true to. We are in control of who we are and we can choose to mold ourselves into the image of what we want to be. We are not at the mercy of some amorphous inner "true self" that this decides for us.
> make what they do seem natural and effortless, but whenever I talk to them I discover that they put a lot of thought, effort and practice into molding themselves
Absolutely. These are trades that require heavy training and hard word. But the essence of the parent comment was that the immense amount of effort required to become proficient in these trades would be insurmountable if not for a deep passion for the subject.
But the essence of the parent comment was that the immense amount of effort required to become proficient in these trades would be insurmountable if not for a deep passion for the subject.
I'm proficient at many things that I hate doing simply out of necessity or profitability. Unless we define "deep passion" to include necessity and finding ways to make ends meet, then it doesn't apply. If we do define it that way "deep passion" proves too much fails to be a useful descriptor.
It seems like less of a leap to suggest that we often have the luxury of using choosing our passions to become proficient at.
I agree with you very strongly, but I want to reframe it a bit: the fact that there is no "true self" and "we are in control of who we are" is basically the modern condition, and the 'be yourself' mantra is one attempt at an answer to this.
"Be yourself" would work well on someone like you, a self reflecting individual. Unfortunately, most of the people I know would use "Be yourself" as an excuse to justify their shortcomings (mood swings, laziness, selfishness, etc.)
A friend was "recently" working on one of them "big firms" that had "be yourself" posters plastered all around the place. He soon realized that what they really meant was: be a sociopath, be ruthless, go for blood/glory, be whatever you are (but-not-really-better-go-for-blood-like-the-big-bosses-around-here).
Worse part is that they were frequently hosting school children where they were brainwashing 10yo kids to become ruthless blood-thirsty-money-making-drones.. (investing in future generations to pass down the torch!)
> It doesn't mean that you let your Id rule and disrespect everyone around you. It means to do things natural to you and in line with your instincts.
> Have you ever seen a really effective kindergarten teacher? Or salesman? Or engineer? They are naturally inclined to do what they do and have the instincts through education and experience to just do what others need to think about.
I rather be frank: You identify "use your insticts" with "be yourself". But claiming with your examples this is a good strategy in general means having a trendemous selection bias. Most people simply don't have such insticts - only few people are very empathic, i.e. for many people "use your insticts"/"be yourself" simply leads by definition to problems. For example many "nerds" really "use their insticts"/"be theirselves". The fact that "nerdiness" is considered a bad trait rather falsifies your claim.
Christianity might be the best example of a religion created with a simplistic motto writen on an restaurant napkin. Learned that from judaism which used two napkins.
"Being yourself", authenticity, and direct/brutal honesty are roughly orthogonal; you can (or not be) one without affecting the others. They are not the same thing.
Being not yourself takes energy and focus. Being yourself is free. It's also multiplicative: the amount of effort you put into something that's in alignment with yourself goes much further than effort put into something not in alignment. It's also restorative: doing things in alignment with yourself can restore energy and focus.
You don't need to determine the magic single identity that is yourself, or the magic single principle that defines yourself. Those don't exist; you just need to go "fuck it, I don't need to spend the effort to be somebody else; myself works just fine."
> "Being yourself", authenticity, and direct/brutal honesty are roughly orthogonal; you can (or not be) one without affecting the others.
While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I find quote does not actually work out in practice.
I have been in many situations (ie around family, coworkers, etc) where the group has a strong opinion about something and I feel the opposite. I would usually not chime in and let the conversation move on, but when people ask your opinion, there is a decision. As far as I can see, the options are basically:
1) Lie: not authentic or direct honesty
2) Avoid/Deflect: maintain authenticity, not direct honesty
3) Fein disinterest: lacking authenticity, not direct honesty
4) Express your dissent: authentic, direct honesty
The only options for maintaining authenticity are to be directly honest, or to not answer, and there is a limit to the extent you can avoid answering direct questions and still maintain freedom and conserve your energy and focus.
So while I agree that you don't have to be brutally honest to be authentic, I would say they are far from orthogonal. Sometimes choices have to be made, especially around people who have a tendency to pry or ask your opinion a lot.
You can also take the socratic approach and just ask good questions instead of making statements.
Sometimes you don't even have to ask, just mirror your counterpart (repeat his last statement as a question) and make good use of silence. Wu wei all the way.
Yes! I am by nature non-confrontational, but this is how I dissent in a discussion without getting into a heated argument (when the possibility of changing minds goes out the window anyway).
This is still difficult, but better than staying quiet or lying, a path to self-contempt.
The problem comes to a head when you get the tech equivalent of "Does this make me look fat?". The vast majority of the time, people asking things like that don't want to hear the truth. They want a partner for their mental trip to fantasy land.
> The problem comes to a head when you get the tech equivalent of "Does this make me look fat?". The vast majority of the time, people asking things like that don't want to hear the truth.
If a majority of society would answer such questions with brutal honesty, the stupid idea of asking questions where they don't want to hear the truth would disappear. This sounds like a better world. So I have to conclude the "politeness" is what prevents improvement in this section.
If you think people are actually interested in the lie when they ask questions like that, you've missed the subtext. They aren't interested in the answer. They know the answer. They want you to make an effort to make them feel good.
You should be flattered when somebody asks you a question like that. It means they want you to care about them. That you would resort to the brutal response might hurt them but it gives them good advice: steer clear of you.
Doesn't the reason for asking that question depend heavily on context? If your wife asks you that as she's getting dressed in the morning, she may well be asking for honest(-ish) feedback to avoid looking fat all day at work. It deserves a very different sort of consideration than if she's asking you that on your dinner date.
Or have I been getting this wrong for the last decade?
Doesn't the reason for asking that question depend heavily on context?
Yes, it does. Maybe you and your wife are so close you can be brutally honest with each other and it doesn't hurt your relationship. The same advice might not apply to Sally from accounting, however.
I'm not sure that is a parallel; having known several who espouse that position, I've never gotten the impression that the weapons with which such a society is armed are intended frequently to be used.
Yes, I measured the kibibytes - it really does. :-) And if you really want to go by looks (as you worded your question): I tested it with a proxy that slows down the connection - one can see the time the website builds itself up and how it looks as long as not all the data of your fatty JS framework arrived. :-)
I found things to be easier if I first contemplate why people ask the question in the first place and then reply to the reason of the question, not the question itself. People ask questions they don't require the answer to(for instance, there might not be an answer) for all kinds of reasons; trolling, 'just making conversation' etc. Depending on the reason and if you have time / want to indulge you can go after the real intent. If someone trolls you can have good shouting matches (which I enjoy now and then), if just making conversation and the question might be laden, you can change the subject that wasn't the goal of the conversation anyway.
another tack is to harmonize. In this situation for example, you'd take a few elements of the group's consensus and fold in your own thoughts - synthesizing a new position that expresses your own ideas but with some 'bridges' that help the group relate to what you are expressing. Maybe even changing your own position marginally in the process.
Yes! I totally do this - you show that you've listened to the other person, that their opinion is important, and then go into reasoning about why you have a differing opinion.
This is of course, if the other person actually wants to have a conversation. If I feel they simply want to vent their frustration, then I usually just let them say what they have to say, and not bother responding.
Sometimes it's better just to keep quiet and say nothing.
If people are venting, and I'm asked directly however, I usually confront the underlying topic - that people are venting for example. Sometimes questions are asked as a type of manipulation, or have a different intention other than receiving an answer to the question.
I frequently find myself asking people if they want to vent, or solve. I'm game for either, but like many of you, pretty sure "solve" is our default state and "vent" is theirs and the mismatch? Not so great.
Yea, my wives is pretty 93% in "solve" mode and I'm 84% in "solve" mode so we try to explicitly say "can I just vent (or talk something out loud) to you?"
They go together: if I know that you and I can have a discussion and agree to disagree, rather than having it escalate it to an emotionally charged argument that affects our relationship, then I'm more likely to express my thoughts thruthfully.
This presumes a level of objective truth that is almost never available within the confines of casual conversation. I find the failure mode of a stubborn "truth-seeker" far more obnoxious in most settings than the failure mode of someone saying "huh, that's interesting, I'll have to look into that more" even when they're pretty sure they're right.
Surely you realize how much of an oxymoron that is.
Follow an unrealistic and impractical standard, just as your forefathers have. Why? Because it is righteous and good.
There's no point in finding the truth. Perhaps if your knowledge seeking gives you positive neurochemical feedback, more power to you, but to denigrate all of society for not conforming to your ideals is a very ugly personality trait.
It's not hard to tell if someone is actually seeking dialectic and wants to pursue the truth. The vast majority of people are making smalltalk and may as well be discussing professional basketball.
The tack I've come to lately is to say "I don't think we currently have sufficient information available to adequately resolve this issue" - it works like a charm, and people seem to like you more when you say that, compared with "let's agree to disagree"
I think "being myself" possibly means something different to me than to others. Like you, I don't find authenticity or honesty to necessarily "be me". However, I also don't necessarily think that being free, without self-censoring is "me" either.
Instead, "being myself" means that I'm happy with my actions. Understanding the results of my actions is key to that. I spend a great deal of effort considering if my first impulse will achieve what I would like it to. I spend equal amounts of effort considering whether my past efforts were what I wanted and thinking of ways to improve.
Lots of things I do are "manufactured". For example, I make a point of trying to find something nice and true to say to people every day. I go to a great deal of effort to ensure that what I say is different each day. I find that it makes people happy. I find that it makes me happy. It forces me to work really hard to discover nice things. It's not my first impulse by any stretch of the imagination, but rather something I decided to do because I really, really like it.
So "being myself" means simply being the person I like best. It means understanding and following my values. It means striving to be happier and more satisfied with everything I do every day. It's certainly not about making my life easier.
Yeah, I mean, if you don't normally go around telling attractive people, apropos of nothing, that you'd like to sleep with them, it's not really being yourself to start doing that.
"Be yourself" doesn't mean "give voice to every thought which passes your mind", it just means "don't change how you normally present yourself just because you're [giving a presentation|interviewing for a job|going out on a first date]"
yes, exactly. i feel like sometimes people take these instructions far to lightly. "be yourself" can be understood to mean, "you should pursue life in such a way that it aligns with your core values and your core identity". It doesn't mean you shouldn't work to improve yourself. Exercising constraint, using tact, being deft and/or subtle in how you respond to people can be very much in line with "who you are". If you are is "loving, respectful" then you can be careful about how you respond to people so that they are felt loved and respected.
You're touching on something that I think deserves some further fleshing out: "being yourself" shouldn't, in and of itself, be a goal. You (hopefully) have actual goals -- learn a new skill, get a promotion, etc. -- and being yourself (or not!) is a tool that you can use to achieve those goals.
Agreed that not being yourself takes energy and focus all its own. So that's a trade-off you make: if not being yourself is a much better way to achieve your actual goal, and you're ok with expending the energy to do that, then, by all means, do that. But if not, then you may want to rethink your goal, or come up with a different way of getting there.
In communication, there's always two sides. Sender and receiver.
It's important that the receiver is open to switching their "language" to that of the sender. If they choose not to accept you and your language, "being yourself" won't get you there.
I suppose what I'm saying is that it's a two-way street.
I find it far more effective to switch my 'language' to the language of the receiver as a sender.
If a message is sent it should take the audience into account. Expecting the audience to adapt to the sender is backwards, and often not even possible.
I think this is a non-tech application of Postel's Law (which I actually vehemently disagree with in tech circles, but whatever): as a sender, try to adapt your language to that of the receiver; as a receiver try to accept what the sender is saying and convert it to your language.
Really, then end goal from your personal perspective should be to understand and be understood. If the person on the other side of the argument isn't very good at adapting, you may want to choose to adapt, regardless of whether you are the speaker or listener.
When compensating (in real life) for a language mismatch, there's no tool that can beat empathy. Try and think yourself in their shoes, and try to understand where they're going with their words, motions, etc.
We should teach kids more about this. It's a vastly underrated skill. Instead, we teach them to attach negative feelings to words. Which is the opposite.
When I say I feel like a fucking sandwich, it's not used as a swear word but as a modern equivalent of "verily". If you had used empathy, you'd understood. Instead, you choose to go by your own set of interpretations, which means you take it to say something heinous.
It's one of the things that set us apart from machines. We have the capacity to choose to interpret stuff however we want.
> When compensating (in real life) for a language mismatch, there's no tool that can beat empathy. Try and think yourself in their shoes, and try to understand where they're going with their words, motions, etc.
When I think myself in other people's shoes, I rather tend to refuse the points the other person makes much more (up to hate for the other side).
Why this? The reason is that if I try to empathize, I immediately see and feel why (if you consider the values and feelings the other person has as mathematical axioms) the argument/actions the other person does makes no logical sense. The problem is that most people behave very stupidly (in sense of applying logic with respect to their values). The only thing that I can do in this situation is being brutally honest about the logical fallacy that I have detected. The sooner the other side realizes this, the better.
Empathy is highly related with the big 5 personality trait Agreeableness, but is not itself agreement.
It is not a failure of empathy to come to understand someone's perspective, and then disagree with that perspective (regardless of what internet busybodies want you to believe).
Depending on how high in Conscientiousness (another big 5 trait) someone is, they might have action-oriented or planning-based conclusions after empathizing with someone. It might seem cold, calculating and "not empathizing" to someone higher in agreeableness.
Both sides should make an effort to understand the other person's language and point of view. The speaker doesn't always know the other person and their biases and what pisses them off.
If I'm talking to someone 1:1 and they don't put in the effort to understand what your real point is, it's not worth continuing the conversation.
Do, by chance, mean to say irrelevant, tangential, or independent? Orthogonal is a $10 word and really does not help in contributing to understanding during a discussion.
But there is also this one: if "being yourself" means being direct and brutal and that does not trigger "wait, I'm an asshole" response then "being yourself" means "being asshole" - which is still "being yourself".
This is basically an easy to break-out excuse for being an asshole(I like the orthogonal bit).
Seen it many times, across many teams. If you can't take 2 seconds to consider the impact of your interactions then you don't have any business working in a collaborative team.
The author is mixing different things up and trying to make them one with the purpose of attacking a weakness of the other as if it were the latter. It's one thing to speak objectively and from a rational point of view, but it's an entirely different thing to "be yourself" (personality). One's self could be one which does not filter things and speaks one's inner monologue, or it can be any number of personalities one has as well as "be at ease", don't stress.
Be your self mainly means don't put on airs or pretend to deliver like someone you admire, but rather adapt those to your own style.
On the other hand, I don't think Honne and Tatemae would be constructive in most societies as to many it would become increasingly difficult to read people.
I hate it when people tell me to 'be myself'. Many people use it as an excuse to be lazy and to avoid giving thoughtful and meaningful suggestion. A genuine feedback for me would be along the lines of, "who are the audience? Why do you think they are investing their time in your talk? What have you come up with so far?". People who regularly give a blanket "just be yourself" comment usually fall off my friend list aggressively.
Growing up, "just be yourself" comments made me incredibly self conscious. In many situations, I simply don't know the right thing to do and the stress from not knowing what to do makes it impossible to be myself because I don't know what to do. Getting a "just be yourself" comment when I reach out for help is the worst. Am I the only person who is confused? Am I missing a personality?
As a result of believing that I am missing a personality growing up, I spent my childhood paying particular attention to the characters that I liked in the movies, shows, and cartoons I watched. I would lay in bed trying to internalize these personalities. I would imagine how that character would react in my day to day situations. If I didn't have a personality, I needed to craft my own. There were many days where I agonized in conflict because I had discovered a new personality that I liked, but it conflicted with my concoction. Eventually, I find a way to either assimilate it into my personality mixture or decide I'm better off without it.
Now, I have built a personality that is uniquely mine, crafted from all the sadness, happiness, proud moments,..., of the many years I have lived. And this process is ongoing. If you know me personally and thought I was strange, random, and/or weird, this is why. I'm probably trying to assimilate a new personality into my existing one.
Just thought I'd share my experiences. Next time if somebody asks you for help, please don't answer with "Be yourself". If you care about them, help them figure out who they are, what they believe in, and lead them to a decision that they would be proud of.
"In many situations, I simply don't know the right thing to do and the stress from not knowing what to do makes it impossible to be myself because I don't know what to do."
I am with you. When I grew up there seemed people who just naturally fit in whereas others including me simply didn't fit in. When I tried to be "myself" I often did embarrassing things or simple stupid things. There probably are environments where I can be myself but I have never found one.
cheers! I cant count how many times I wish I could melt into a dipping sauce so I can be eaten and disappear. At one point though, I decided I've had enough and started to pay attention to what it takes to 'fit in'. Looking back, the best decision I made was to hire a pickup artist for a weekend. Spending a weekend talking to a dozen beautiful women (out of my league) and getting feedback on my body language, things I said, social awareness, etc, after each interaction helped me break through a glass ceiling in terms of 'fitting in'.
>> Growing up, "just be yourself" comments made me incredibly self conscious. In many situations, I simply don't know the right thing to do and the stress from not knowing what to do makes it impossible to be myself because I don't know what to do. Getting a "just be yourself" comment when I reach out for help is the worst. Am I the only person who is confused? Am I missing a personality?
All of that not knowing what to do sounds more like fear of doing the wrong thing, and I'd guess that comes from past failures. Sometimes failures are learning experiences, but other times they become lasting reminders of our failures. Learning to put aside the failures and insecurities and outside influences is what "be yourself" means - at least that's how I have come to see it.
I would like to respond to "be yourself" with "what do you mean by that?". On a literal reading, it's meaningless, because i can't help but be myself, so it must be a metaphor, but it's not at all clear what for. I honestly doubt that people even know what they mean by it themselves.
If they do manage to explain it, the obvious followup is probably "why do you think that's a good idea?".
I often found that "be yourself" really meant, "be yourself, but not like that." Or to put it more politely, "be yourself" equates to "Be the person I see you as".
No one wants to see our true self? Maybe not. Or maybe you are missing the fact that friends who say, "be yourself" have probably seen bits of your true self and liked it, and are just trying to cut through your anxiety. You're coming to someone saying, "I want them to like me. Should I be like this? Should I be like that?" If you're lucky enough to be talking to someone who genuinely likes who you are, they are not going to tell you to be something else, just "yourself."
In the advice context of the article, the goal is (for an arbitrary person) to be successful and liked by an audience (whether the TED audience, or an audience of employees, or an audience of TV viewers, or in front of friends and acquaintances). In that context, I'd say being authentic doesn't make you likable, but if you can be authentic while simultaneously being likable, people love that.
Brutal honesty, which is a different thing, will not win you friends. No one likes the person who says, "What? I was just being honest!" Social interactions are transactional and layered with meaning. "I want to have sex with you right now" is not merely a random act of stating a fact, and neither is a personal criticism (e.g. "you're ugly"). An exec who asks her employees for emotional support is making an ask that may not be comfortable.
My advice is to learn to be more authentic (with fewer self-inhibiting inner dictates), for your own personal reasons, and simultaneously to learn how to better relate to other people.
Pre-facing this with: "What? I was just being honest!"
Skimming this thread, and especially reading this comment, it all seems so absurd.
Does this post really reflect how you operate on a day to day basis? By over-analyzing social interactions and figuring out their "rules."
> "I want them to like me. Should I be like this? Should I be like that?"
Have you not learned this already? Has nobody learned to deal with themselves that they seriously contemplate this article and the shallow "be yourself" advice?
The phrase, as it's most commonly used, is likely to be perfect for extroverts. I'm an extrovert, with many extrovert friends, and this is perfect advice for me and my friends. "Don't care what other people think, just do what you want to do and the rest will come." Nothing more. It was not meant to be deconstructed, as it wasn't made by an engineer.
It's not meant for introverts and the anxious. Do not apply it your lives. There are no universal truths for human happiness and behaviour.
Heh, I'm exasperated with the author too, but only because they published their absurdities. I don't judge people for having absurdities in their heads.
As a semi-anxious person, I've found it is useful to deconstruct this stuff.
"There are no universal truths for human happiness and behaviour." That's pretty bold statement. We know that there are universal truths to human suffering, and the behavior that can lead to suffering. We see it all the time depicted on the news, or we all experience it at one point or another. Why do you say the same is not true of happiness?
The philosophy of transcendental, non-dual Shaiva Tantra has lots to say about this subject.
One being that, your belief about what you feel about yourself is not your authentic, true self. These beliefs are generally narratives, some deeper than others. Examples of narratives include: "I am successful"; "I am a failure"; "I am smart"; "I am dumb"; "I am socially graceful"; "I am socially inept". Rather that arising from narratives, no matter how deeply held, the authentic self arises naturally and spontaneously from the transcendental ground from which all phenomena arises from.
In other words, "be yourself" is once both good advice and bad advice. It's generally where you want to go (at least from the perspective of Shaiva Tantra). But you need sufficient wisdom -- that is, awareness -- of knowing your true self.
The other is that what arises naturally and spontaneously may not be something you want to arise naturally and spontaneously. Someone who is naturally and spontaneously an asshole is still an asshole. Part of the practices Shaiva Tantra involves becoming. If you want to be a compassionate person, it isn't enough to put on a social mask so people see you behaving in a compassionate way; that is not authentic. It isn't enough to want to do it, or to feel it welling up deeply inside of you. Rather, it is becoming (that is, the transformation into) the person such that being compassionate is natural and spontaneous.
Shaiva Tantra is not the only teaching that has something to say about this subject. Another one I learned from books written by that trickster, Carlos Castaneda, this idea of impeccable intent. It's another way of saying "integrity" or "authenticity", or "wholeness". There are others -- Lao Tzu, for example. Rumi.
Oooh perfect, a googleable term to capture thoughts I've been worrying over for years now.
I am a very different person than I was 10 years ago - I think so, and people around me think so. But the question of "who I am, on the inside," I think I would answer with traces of that old self, even though that old self never outwardly manifests anymore.
So there's "me, me," the version that is quick to judge others, has a hyper-inflated ego, wants to sit around and watch netflix, and eat a lot of donuts. Then there's "I wish I was this guy, me," the 15% bodyfat 225lb bench 10x programmer that everybody loves, and then there's the "me that other people see," which is somewhere between the other two versions. So which one is "me?" Me-me has a desire to become "I-wish-me" and is acting on that desire in concrete ways, and tamps down "me-me" mindsets in order to achieve that. So are there two individuals in this body fighting? What's going on?
Looking forward to reading more about Shaiva Tantra, thanks for bringing it up.
Zizek has a good piece on this, linked at the bottom, which reflects in part my thoughts on the matter. When considering all of the "me's", the eternally misunderstood "me" the "me" that everyone else sees, the one that is "real" is fairly straightforward. When we think of something being real, or not real, we're often posing a question over whether it's perceptible. After all, in this empirical world, we can only be sure of the existence of things that can be observed. The 'real me', in this light, is unequivocally the person that others interact with. Internal debates between superego and id, between the best possible version of yourself and the slovenly inverse potential, are all rather ancillary.
This leads to the discomfiting but valuable realisation that all of the generous narratives you've developed behind your actions don't ameliorate them one bit. Simply believing one's self to be a good person with a terrific goodwill towards your fellow man means nothing at all compared to what we have actually wrought. Zizek notes that everyone believes that, deep down, they are a good person, taking the example of the Nazi that, when accused of atrocities he is complicit in, protests that "that was not the real me. If only you knew the life that has lead me here, then you'd understand".
There is a fantastic book on Shaiva Tantra written by Christopher D. Wallis, named Tantra Illuminated. The book covers the View (philosophy), history, and some practices. The View can get very involved. I've been mining that for a while, applying it to living in our modern world.
On Quora, there is a guy named Les Matheson who also wrote this fantastic essay on "authentic self". I think it is Les Matheson -- Quora is down right now, so I can't check my memory. It is a chapter he wrote for his book. He had dropped it in on his Quora blog and then removed it, said he was revising it. When I read it, it was a very clear discourse on what the authentic self, and how there are various stages in understanding that authentic self. Unlike Shaiva Tantra, which will have religious views woven into it, Matheson's essay does not (though I don't feel it mutually excludes the Tantric view). His essay starts with this idea of a single-piece puzzle. We usually think of puzzles as multiple pieces that you fit together to form something. But what about a single-piece puzzle? Where does that fit? Is our self puzzle of many pieces ... or a single puzzle piece? If it is the latter, what does that mean? This discourse goes from there -- is the self a box or light? Is it something you try to contain all the things you think of as "you"... or is it light, that radiates and shines?
To answer the questions you brought up from the perspective of my shamanic experiences -- yeah, I have found multiple fragments of personalities that are within. I've found that pieces of ourselves are scattered all over. They might come into greater or lesser influence depending on situations, circumstances, who you are with. Some of these are the rejected shadows (part of Jungian psychology). There are shamanic methods to deliberately get in touch with these, perhaps by bringing temporarily individuating them (similar to gestalt therapy). These can be facilitated by dream work, by drumming, or other means. Reintegration is not really straightforward as, hey, put these things together and somehow they will fit. But no single piece are really Self.
Yup, there is a neat relationship between Shaiva Tantra and Buddhism. The most radical of the non-dual Shaiva Tantra streams starts to resemble Dzogchen.
There is an interesting mapping that goes like this:
Shaiva tantra: self -> no self -> self
Mahayana Buddhism: no self -> self -> no self
I have not fully explored how this all relate to each other. I can say that it makes more sense to compare Mahayana strain of Buddhism to Shaiva Tantra than Theraveda. This is because Mahayana tends to be more cosmic whereas Theraveda tends to be more humanist. Apparently, Buddhist Tantra does not have its own View; or rather, the Buddhist Tantra View is Mahayana.
The renunciate path, that is, the hermit that goes off into the woods with great digust for worldly things, can work for some people. Monasteries are a kind of compromise with renunciation: the monks are usually supported socially by the community.
Renunciation is usually how Buddhism is understood in the West. David Chapman, of the Meaningness blog, has some great articles arguing why the renunciation path does not work well for Westerners in the modern world, and that Tantra is a much better vehicle. Most Westerners struggle with what it means to have individuality. Americans, in particular, grew up in a culture that rejects collectivism, and as a result, cut away the experiences one needs from collectivism. This tension between individualism and collectivism has not been answered well by pop media (hence the popularity of Oprah). There are a lot of insights in ancient teachings about this subject; updating them to be more accessible for modern Westerners is still an ongoing work that a lot of people are keenly interested in.
I asked my friend, "Why do you do cocaine?"
And he said, "Well, it intensifies your personality."
And I said, "Well yes, but what if you're an asshole?"
I didn't used to be myself, and I was unhappy. Then I decided, after being told to be myself, to be myself. I started doing whatever I felt like doing, and being true to myself, and I started being happier.
But it turns out I was an asshole. So I decided not to be an asshole. This also meant changing my life, and getting new friends. I'm only a little bit of an asshole now, but i'm a lot happier.
> Instead of searching for our inner selves and then making a concerted effort to express them, Trilling urged us to start with our outer selves. Pay attention to how we present ourselves to others, and then strive to be the people we claim to be.
You can take this a couple of ways: "Fake it til you make it" is one interpretation, and "Be so fake that you become real" is another. The argument is that whatever ideal you're trying to pretend to associate with yourself, you should go all-in. But this is horrible advice, too. What they're suggesting is that, rather than meditate on the reasons for the obvious difference between what you're trying to reflect outwards and how you are inside, just go ahead and become that person without thinking about why.
Part of my becoming "myself 2.0" meant analyzing why I did things, and why I felt bad about some thoughts or actions, and good about others. As I developed more compassion for the people in my life and the way I affected them, my value system changed. I decided I didn't want to do certain things anymore, but I did want to do other things more. This changed my outward and inward self. So I don't know if I buy this idea of modeling your thoughts on an appearance. Even if you were trying to be the model of the Buddha, that's not necessarily going to make you happy.
I was happy being who I was, but I was not happy when I figured out that I was an asshole, mainly because it made me feel bad. In a way, not being an asshole was a selfish thing. If I didn't feel bad about it, I would probably still be an asshole...
The most useful understanding of "Being Yourself" is cultivating the ability to feel all of your emotions authentically.
Expressing your emotions honestly is also a way to have antifragile relationships, but if you've built a relationship in which honesty wasn't valued and you have an agreement to hide the truth from one another, doing it all of a sudden would most likely be a pretty jarring experience and most likely result in many people leaving.
We live in a deeply codependent culture in which we are constantly trying to protect each other from our own experience (ie, not telling the truth for fear someone can't handle it) and so we walk around on egg shells.
I think it's worth the discomfort of working to be honest. It's difficult at times, and I surely don't succeed all the time, but when I do it is always worth it.
When I read this guys article what I hear is him saying "being myself is terrible advice" which is a common experience for many people, one that they are taught by their family and society in the earliest days of their life.
It's difficult and frightening to let go of that narrative and less frightening to simply pass it down stream to the next generation - through conscious means such as this article, or by unconscious means via shaming.
I think its extremely hard to know what your true self is. Like you said about codependent culture, it seems that there is a great deal of unhealthy social conditioning to unwind in order to understand what "Being Yourself" really even looks like. For me I've struggled finding the balance between not allowing myself to be walked on (due to my codependent tendencies) and being able to be vulnerable and open to hearing criticism about myself. In my mind it has been a struggle to determine whether my thoughts are codependent or authentic.
"Just be yourself" is a little too simplified I'm afraid, my former self was people-pleasing and constantly seeking validation while avoiding emotions and conflict, not being vulnerable. That is not the person I want to be, to discover who I am I've had to recognize that there are new values that were deep inside me (authenticity, vulnerability, honesty) but that I had to dismantle a whole bunch of socially conditioned lies to get there as I had a misunderstanding of those values. I don't think I could have done this process alone, therapy has helped me a lot to recognize that I had unhealthy opinions.
I share a similar perspective and experience. Also agree that the simplicity of "be yourself" can mask the depths of it and the years of work required to find the Self.
I certainly couldn't have done it alone, and can't imagine doing it without MDMA therapy in particular.
So if you possess that trait, and by being yourself you express concerns, anxiety, show signs of irritability or openly express negative feelings... that's not in your best interest.
If you do not have neurotic personality traits, it might be OK for you to "be yourself".
Now, what the article describes (or prescribes) overlaps with what you see in introductory negotiation training. A good course I've seen is one by Seth Freeman available through The Great Courses plus. You can watch the first lesson here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H3PdkezKQ8
I think I'm naturally a high self-monitor kind of person who has slowly learned to loosen the reins over the years. It feels better when you can be authentic, but you need to be around people you trust and you need to know what the limits are.
I interpret the phrase "be yourself" to mean "don't be afraid of being judged". People are often preoccupied with managing the guilt or shame that they experience when they face social disapproval for (otherwise innocuous) natural inclinations.
This is good advice for someone with social anxiety, and not as good for someone with narcissistic tendencies.
Also, I think the author only talks about external rewards, but "being yourself" is largely about internal rewards: it's about being comfortable with yourself, which allows you to feel at peace.
I've met plenty of super-successful people who work every day to be exactly what the successful people around them want them to be. These peoples' "high-maintenance" approaches to life have allowed them to achieve some status they desired, but these people are often unhappy anyway, because they optimize for rewards that matter to other people, and not to themselves.
As an exercise pitted against the anecdote you gave of A.J Jacobs trying to live an authentic life, try this: pretend to be everything you wish yourself to be. Wear those qualities with as much confidence you can muster and then go out into the world and build relationships; wear this new persona that you have created when you start you start a relationship with someone, pretend to show all the qualities you wish you possess the next time you get interviewed for a job, etc.. Then watch yourself and see how it feels to carry the burden of having to constantly pretend to be something that you only wish your self to be. Doesn't sound very enjoyable if you ask me.
The worst thing that can happen, is that it'll work.Because then you have to keep it up. Not to mention, all the friends you have, people you connect with don't like you, but like this person you think you have to be.
So I'd like to share an anecdote for a moment and get some feed back on this:
I have a rather brief speaking style when I express myself verbally. It's a brief, staccato and deliberate speaking style combined with my deep voice and rather monotone delivery that doesn't have many changes in inflection. Not forceful, but deliberate (as in I'm the sit and observe type, many will tell you-but when I do speak I'm usually to the point immediately, and then go back into observe mode). Got it from my father, a military man who also speaks little, but directly, with a deep voice who chooses his words very carefully.
As a result, in one of my part-time jobs I have people remarking one or more of the following:
A) "You should cheer up!" - while I'm actually in a content mood
B) "Why are you upset?" - while I'm actually pretty neutral in temperment
C) "That's rude" - when I've uttered nothing objectively offensive or rude toward the person
It's an interesting phenomenon to me because virtually everyone who knows me knows I'm just a quiet person who isn't necessarily shy, but isn't exactly verbose either when I make oral contributions to my interactions with people.
There is the one thing I contend with, a bit of social anxiety-so when I try to take note of this, and actually be more expressive, add more inflections to my speaking pattern, it comes off highly unnatural, fake, and said anxiety goes through the roof to the point where I begin stumbling madly over my words.
Is this something anyone else experiences? How have you overcome it, did you overcome it at all, or is this something I'm just overthinking (like a lot of other things)?
Without seeing video of you interact, I suspect that it is not just your intonation but a combination of your body language, eye contact, and (possibly) attitude towards others who are communicating.
There is one recommendation that I have for you if you would like to become more expressive and communicative without overdoing it (the excessive intonation). Take an improv course. It will force you to communicate out of your comfort zone which in turn will help you better communicate in your comfort zone.
Yes, I am out of my mind and I was just telling you what has helped me personally.
If you are already very nervous about this and you are even the slightest bit interested, perhaps a first step would be to go to an improv show and see it in person.
Going back to your original questions, have you considered telling the person that "I'm fine and it is possible that I may have seemed _____." By doing this, you acknowledge that the person may have assumed incorrectly without being antagonistic.
>Going back to your original questions, have you considered telling the person that "I'm fine and it is possible that I may have seemed _____."
Quite a few times, actually.
"Sorry, I'm actually okay, I just have resting 'bored' face/voice". They chuckle, we chat for a few minutes and one can observe their take of the situation changing completely as it dawns on them: "Oh, this is literally just how this guy talks".
You know the character Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh? Without sounding that drastically morose and actually being sad, it's sort of like that. Even when he's happy his voice just sounds slow, lethargic and uninterested.
So as it happens, I often have people talk to me for about two seconds, immediately jump to the "Cheer up!" routine, we talk more and it becomes evident the person slowly starts to 'get it'. It's not that I shut people out or refuse to engage in conversations, because my answers more often than not match up point for point with what we're talking about. I just have a very lethargic sounding voice coupled with answers that are sometimes more brief than a person is anticipating-which results in the oft-incorrect assumption that I'm annoyed with them.
I have not had to overcome to a degree you appear to be facing.
Early in life, I was introverted, tech oriented and did not talk much.
Performing arts actually did me a lot of good. Long story, but I got into some productions due to parts being hard to fill. Massive stage fright and anxiety.
Got past it when I realized I was bad and any effort at all would be an improvement.
Cared less about what others thought, focused on good intent and protocols, charm basically.
For me, it became a sense of taking good care of others around me, including me. The including me part was the key.
When we are genuine about wanting communication to go better, we can treat everyone, including ourselves.
That began a long journey. Started by just making sure the basics were there and adopting role models.
This may seem awful shallow, but my grannie nailed it. If you want to live in a nice world, start with the person in the mirror.
Like attracts like. Consideration received is very often consideration given.
Over time, I found ways to express things that left others an out.
Example:
User skills assessment. Truth is, this is a project to find out who sucks and who could use help.
A third party can judge this, but it's all kind of negative.
Worse, we as people, users, are often asked to rate ourselves and who wants to figure out our suckage and communicate it in detail?
Today, I would frame all of that in terms of interest. "Rate your interest in these things..." And leave them an other, blank to fill in, if they want to.
Truth is, some people suck and are interested in help if they can get it without judgement, theirs or others.
Others are good, but just want more.
Still others are seeking, maybe curious, wanting to expand on their skill sets, do new things.
Removing judgement from my interactions, making sure there are outs for people has improved my communications and related skills (training) across the board.
Most of the anxiety I had is gone. I can always phrase it in a way that leaves the door wide open for others to respond as they feel makes sense.
And the intent behind that is all good. People need help, I can give it, they may want more, are seeking, or they may just have to somehow too.
Doing that work to improve and share has madever me more comfortable by making sure I'm not adding to others potential anxiety or overall comfort.
In business, avoiding these same things has been enlightening and in similar ways. What I found out is its often necessary to understand how others make their money better so that conversations can center on high value things and everyone is comfortable because there are no or very few judgements.
Just plastering on some warm fuzziness stands out. Your increased anxiety has clear cause. You aren't wrong in that.
Just start with small things. Thanking the cashier, complimenting someone without creep vibes, etc...
Really think about each one and where implied judgement or direct judgement is likely and phrase it in ways where they can see your intent.
Once they do, and you are hitting the mark for, most of your work and or business relationships should improve. They will return what you are giving and the much reduced sense of being judged should help with anxiety.
One last thing.
Anxiety of this kind and in social interactions generally boils down to being unsure what will happen.
Doing the work I describedid here should improve it all for you.
If you are unsure what will happen, include phrasing to insure a good outcome. Think it through so you have some discussion paths down cold.
And smile. That one will seem forced. It will be for a while too, but when coupled with this concept of being considerate and non judging, will end up natural.
Instead of "Be yourself" I would suggest "Own yourself". Take ownership of your mind, actions, personality, failures etc. There are lot of invisible tentacles sucked into your thinking process.
> It is possible I can make very little of myself; but this little is everything, and better than what I allow to be made out of me by the might of others, by the training of custom, religion, the laws, the State. -- Max Stirner
As a side note, Max Stirner has a great book called "The Ego and His Own". Gives a quite radical but refreshing view on individualism.
I think "be your best self" is far more uplifting and positive than the ambiguous "be yourself". The latter leaves open that it is OK to succumb to any negative or bad thoughts, impulses or actions, instead of rejecting or controlling them.
Perhaps we should just aspire to smile, don't judge others, do what is good and right, say only good things of others, and don't remain silent or inactive in the face of injustice or cruelty. Or is it OK to not do this if it is at odds with just "be yourself"?
Interesting excerpt from the referenced self-monitoring paper: "Stated otherwise, the theory of self-monitoring concerns differences in the extent to which people value, create, cultivate, and project social images and public appearances. High self-monitors can be likened to consummate social pragmatists, willing and able to project images designed to impress others. Moreover, they seem to believe in the appearances they create and to take stock in the fact that these appearances can and do become social realities. By contrast, low self-monitors seem not only unwilling but also unable to carry off appearances. They live as if put-on images are falsehoods, as if only those public displays true to the privately experienced self are principled."
I've also read that the ability for human ancestors to organize might be based on negatively impacting emotions related to self-image: "I believe that the origins of the uniquely human emotions of shame and guilt are an outcome of natural selection pushing combination strategies for negative emotions.... to feel shame and guilt, there must be a sense of self as an object of evaluation" [1]
If these hypotheses are true, "high self-monitors" might come from from 2 places:
1. an aptitude for putting on appearances (and believing in them as an image of self)
2. high sensitivity to negative "self" emotions like shame and guilt
Consider these 2 archetypes ("A" & "P"), now also consider alongside them a 3rd archetype of all "low self-monitors" ("D"). The most interesting part is to model the interaction of these 3 archetypes working together - naturally these different perspectives cause misunderstanding, but perhaps balance. In 2004, Parker, Stone, Brady et al proposed a theory to model these relationships in simple terms. Some people have even referred to the articulation of this theory as the "greatest speech ever". [2]
"be yourself" could mean a lot of things, and I don't think this author pins down what definition he wants to use, and conflates it with a tendency to self-monitor. Additionally, be yourself to what? The author assumes that you really want successful external outcomes. Perhaps in "being yourself" you really just want to enjoy the activity. He makes a decent case that high self-monitoring will get you more "conventional external success."
From biographies and things I've read, when people have a really strong role model, they'll often try to copy them so slavishly that they'll do things their role model did and that they have no aptitude for or real interest in. They usually find this doesn't work well for them in any way, in the end, and have to find the way they work. I'd say these people find out they need to build on their strengths, and they can execute on the vision of their role model in a way that really suits them, to the extent it suits them, and that works better. If your role model had a relative with cancer and felt strongly motivated to fight that by raising money for non-profit organizations fighting cancer, you might find that the cause of fighting heart disease really stirs you up more. I'd propose "capitalize on your personal strengths" pins down what you'd really want out of the phrase "be yourself".
I usually tell junior employees at work something along the lines of "I do it this way. You should find out how you do it."
Well, I don't really know my point with this comment. I'll just throw it out for contemplation.
I wonder about the difference in success between "genuine" people who's "genuine self" happen to align, purposefully through self-development or as an accident of their upbringing, with whatever their culture views as a successful/leader personality. Even better if that could be compared to a very good "liar," i.e. someone who "fakes it until they make it."
The author sounds like a 'fake it till you make it' type. Personally, I'm not a fan of that style of self improvement as it required so much work for me.
The problem with 'acting as if' is, say it works. Then you have to keep it up. So you gain all these friends, success, etc because you are acting other than how you are, and you only affirm that you have to be something other than what you are to get all those things. By trying to 'fix' the problem, you support it.
It becomes it's own hell.
My problem with his arguments is he is making sweeping assumptions about both 'high self monitor's' and 'low self monitor's', and blanket statements that immediately put his argument out of touch with reality.
It just seems like he doesn't understand the topic, because it didn't help him.
I am always "myself". I just have a well-defined catalog of masks that I wear in public.
Just as I do not leave the house without appropriate clothing on my body, I do not project from my personality center without an appropriate mask on.
Seeing other "naked" personalities would be just as jarring to me as a random group of nudists at the mall--especially as malls are predominantly occupied by apparel stores.
I don't particularly feel the need to allow anyone a glimpse of my private personality parts, nor would I find it useful to look at someone else's. I'd never really know if I were seeing the real thing or another mask, anyway.
"Be yourself" doesn't really mean anything. I do agree with your assessment of the healthiest interpretation of the advice, and I think this is how people mean to use it. That said, plenty of people misinterpret the advice to justify not changing too, and that's what the article means to address.
>"Be Yourself" does not mean be your bad sides. Nor does it mean be static and never evolve. It means evolving while still respecting the person that you are. This includes shedding bad habits.
Sounds like an empty platitude then, if it takes a whole other sentence to explain it.
I love the way the author accidentally manages to be very strong evidence for the "be yourself" advice. He tries so hard to be edgy and cool and blunt, despite the fact that he's obviously just a nerd (which is a good thing that he should embrace), and it comes off as awkward and pathetic.
If "yourself" is someone who wants to do something that doesn't come naturally, then naturally you must do something that doesn't come naturally to you, in order to "be yourself"!
Also, please watch Moonlight, if you have not. It's more about the age old question of identity and growing up than any movie in recent history (including Boyhood).
This only holds under the (IMHO really strong) assumption that you (with few exceptions) like the changes that other people want to see in the world. I have doubts about this assumption.
I don't see any merit in your attack. I don't see how the author is self-important, I don't agree that being self-important is objectively bad, I don't believe being high-monitor is objectively bad, I don't believe that profit-driven individuals are bad, and I don't agree that being profit-driven automatically makes you contribute to "what's wrong with society."
Can you expand on your argument, since you clearly feel strongly enough about the article to get emotional about it?
It doesn't mean that you let your Id rule and disrespect everyone around you. It means to do things natural to you and in line with your instincts.
Have you ever seen a really effective kindergarten teacher? Or salesman? Or engineer? They are naturally inclined to do what they do and have the instincts through education and experience to just do what others need to think about.
The example of the general manager at HP was a great one. Being a genuine and sincere person, even with subordinates is fine in a small setting. But when you're addressing 5000 employees, its formal by necessity and you're not speaking as you -- you're an officer of the company.
I think it's great when people don't try to be someone else. One of the people who I mentored for awhile started out as a real jerk... he almost got fired for attitude. It turned out that he was in the wrong role, an operational, follow the process role that was stifling to him and driving people crazy. We recognized that, got him in a better gig and he shined. If he had sucked it up and marched like a good soldier, I never would have known.