14 ms·

"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 th

"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."

vvanders 10y ago
> direct/brutal honesty are roughly orthogonal 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.
taco_emoji 10y ago
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]"
- walljm 10y ago
  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.
propman 10y ago
Thanks this surprisingly really connected with me
tlogan 10y ago
Yes - that 100% correct. 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".
- wolfgke 10y ago
  That honesty is considered as "being an asshole" rather tells about the society.
Indy_Dh 10y ago
> "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.
- soperj 10y ago
  Being yourself doesn't mean not lieing.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    If you are a very honest kind of person, it does.
- jbattle 10y ago
  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.
  - LouisSayers 10y ago
    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.
richforrester 10y ago
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.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  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.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    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.
  - richforrester 10y ago
    This is exactly why I brought it up. 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.
mikekchar 10y ago
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.
kelnos 10y ago
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.
sebringj 10y ago
I agree. I also think we are different people in different situations.
stagbeetle 10y ago
> orthogonal 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.
- thisrod 10y ago
  Someone should teach this immigrant the language already. :-) http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/O/orthogonal.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/O/orthogonal.html
  - stagbeetle 10y ago
    I've been found out. Integrating into the Holy Hacker News Kingdom has been tough, especially since a thesaurus acts as a translation dictionary. Cheers on the jargon repository, though.
  - aangjie 10y ago
    I'm with the immigrant.. :-) Independent is more used and likely to make it easier to read. No comments on possibility of mis-interpretations. -- Disclaimer: I'm a non-native speaker.

vvanders 10y ago

> direct/brutal honesty are roughly orthogonal 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.

taco_emoji 10y ago

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]"

walljm 10y ago
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.

propman 10y ago

Thanks this surprisingly really connected with me

tlogan 10y ago

Yes - that 100% correct. 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".

wolfgke 10y ago
That honesty is considered as "being an asshole" rather tells about the society.

Indy_Dh 10y ago

> "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.

soperj 10y ago
Being yourself doesn't mean not lieing.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  If you are a very honest kind of person, it does.
jbattle 10y ago
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.
- LouisSayers 10y ago
  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.

richforrester 10y ago

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.

jacquesm 10y ago
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.
- kelnos 10y ago
  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.
- richforrester 10y ago
  This is exactly why I brought it up. 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.

mikekchar 10y ago

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.

kelnos 10y ago

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.

sebringj 10y ago

I agree. I also think we are different people in different situations.

stagbeetle 10y ago

> orthogonal 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.

thisrod 10y ago
Someone should teach this immigrant the language already. :-) http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/O/orthogonal.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/O/orthogonal.html
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  I've been found out. Integrating into the Holy Hacker News Kingdom has been tough, especially since a thesaurus acts as a translation dictionary. Cheers on the jargon repository, though.
- aangjie 10y ago
  I'm with the immigrant.. :-) Independent is more used and likely to make it easier to read. No comments on possibility of mis-interpretations. -- Disclaimer: I'm a non-native speaker.