5 ms·

Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport. In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people wo

Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport. In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it. In our enlightened modern times, people don't give a shit, and trying to shame them into not doing it is pointless. They are shameless about their selfishness, and apparently that's OK now. With the result, as others have said, that we end up in the worst box on the Prisoner's Dilemma choices: we all have to put with other people's shitty taste in music and no-one gets any peace and quiet. I don't get how we write this up as "authenticity" without also concluding that these people authentically have no consideration for the other people around them, and are therefore bad people. I certainly do not want these people to be authentic around me, I would very much like them to have some shame and maintain a considerate front, even if that's not their true nature.

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
Authenticity doesn't mean you act in a way that the majority approves of, in fact it's often the opposite case. It also doesn't make any presuppositions about the morality of specific behaviour. To be authentic is to be your true self, despite what others think which requires bravery and that is something people admire. If something is considered shameful is a subjective judgement about behaviours that may or may not be authentic. In fact, people who act authentically are often liked not despite of but because of their flaws. To be human is to be flawed, we're all guilty. And it turns out a lot of people crave permission to not be perfect.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - gblargg 1y ago
    I don't think you understood the point of the comment you replied to. It was two-fold: what authentic means, and why people prefer imperfect people to be authentic than present a false image. Even your disrespectful response shows its value: you can get feedback that might actually help you improve.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  My point is that your definition of "authenticity" seems to include behaviour that is plain inconsiderate of other people. I think there's a line there. You can wear what you like, think what you like, speak how you like, but only behave how you like up to the point where your behaviour negatively affects other people. If you want to listen to shit music in your own home, you do you, that's fine. But inflicting it on everyone else in a train carriage is not "being authentic" it's "being an asshole". You're not expressing your true self in a brave way that should be admired. You're annoying everyone around you by being selfish. It's a huge difference.
5350-uiop-1130 1y ago
70–90% of people have functional object impermanence, and at least 50% have no inner dialogue no self awareness, no reflection. just impulse. me, me, me. blasting music in public, talking at max volume, slamming doors. taking 20 mins to use an ATM when it takes me 30 seconds. and so on.
- bsdz 1y ago
  > at least 50% have no inner dialogue I'm not sure I trust this. A quick search finds a Psychology Today article about it along with a single reference. I lazily suspect the result is based on some type of questionnaire. The way "chain of thought" is used in LLMs to improve reasoning demonstrates, to me at least, the value of capturing intermediate steps in some rich compressed structure. Nothing beats that than words and sentences (see them or hear them). A lot of ideas can't be captured with just photos alone imho.
- keybored 1y ago
  A master Buddhist meditator deep in meditation might also have no inner dialogue. I don’t really get the significance of this No Inner Dialogue meme.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- aleksiy123 1y ago
  The irony of this comment.
arkey 1y ago
> people who play music/video aloud on public transport But that's not being authentic, that's being plain rude, and there should be a difference. You can be authentic and still respect boundaries and be considerate towards other people. And on the other side, if being rude is your form of authenticity, then you're not authentic, you're just another rude person, probably following a specific type of common behaviour.
- netsharc 1y ago
  > You can be authentic and still respect boundaries and be considerate towards other people. From the point of view of the douche: why should they do that, for what gain? I suppose if they care about social cohesion they'd care, but on the flip side, people nowadays can seem to violate social norms and still get through life just fine, in the old days they might suffer if society shunned them. Makes me think of the cafe sign that listed prices: "Coffee $5; A coffee please: $3; Good day, I would like a coffee please: $1", being pleasant helps when doing business as well, people will even avoid doing business with you if you're unpleasant (except maybe if your soup is really really good). Maybe the "loneliness epidemic" means that people are developing a tolerance to the unavailability of pleasant social interactions. Now it makes me think maybe the Black Mirror social scoring ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcspUD0kF7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcspUD0kF7g ) is a useful way to punish douches after all.
woooooo 1y ago
> trying to shame them into not doing it is pointless. Speak for yourself, its at least satisfying. Insult their choice of music and provide suggestions for what they should play instead.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  It gets tiring. I'm willing to fight a certain amount for some kind of social norms that respect other people. But honestly, if every bus trip needs to turn into a confrontation, it gets old fast.
  - woooooo 1y ago
    Fair enough, I actually only did that once or twice.
andy99 1y ago
The music thing is, I think, a related phenomenon I'll call the demolition man effect. Most people now are so weak and nonconfrontational that someone willing to break social norms can just walk all over them. This is because nobody wants to stand up for themselves or more fundamentally rock the boat. The shamelessness thing is similar but fundamentally different in that it gets a following. Everyone thinks the kid/boomer without headphones is an ass, they just don't say it.
gadders 1y ago
Unfortunately everyone mocked Karens who at least were a force for good in enforcing social norms and etiquette.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Karens got mocked because busybody and entitled types expecting trying to enforce various sorts of compliance upon other people in ways far beyond what is reasonable is such a common occurrence and annoys so many people that mocking them resonates. Same reason you'll never see a standup comedian who doesn't mock intimate relationships somehow.
potato3732842 1y ago
>Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport. >In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it. Your equivalent ilk of decades past complained about "kids these days" and their boomboxes in public in basically the same way you're doing now.
- badc0ffee 1y ago
  It's not one guy with a boombox now, it's 7 people with TikTok open on their phones.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  It's not kids - if it was then sure, I could write this off as "kids these days". But it's all sorts, all ages, all cultures. Obviously some folks always wanted to do this.
const_cast 1y ago
The problem with shame is that the people who use shame as a tool do not understand how to use it conservatively. You see, they shame for playing music in public. Okay, great. But they also shame for your weight, your sexuality, the color of your skin. Your job, your hobbies, your family. Your clothing, your skin, your hair. And now, shame, as a tool, has been worn down to its bones. Of course then society at large begins to reject it.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  Yeah, agree. It has been overused, and it's good that that doesn't work any more. I'd like the line to be drawn just a little further back, though, please ;)
- jakeydus 1y ago
  I think the primary difference is shaming someone for behavior that impacts others and shaming someone for behavior that is none of my business.

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago

Authenticity doesn't mean you act in a way that the majority approves of, in fact it's often the opposite case. It also doesn't make any presuppositions about the morality of specific behaviour. To be authentic is to be your true self, despite what others think which requires bravery and that is something people admire. If something is considered shameful is a subjective judgement about behaviours that may or may not be authentic. In fact, people who act authentically are often liked not despite of but because of their flaws. To be human is to be flawed, we're all guilty. And it turns out a lot of people crave permission to not be perfect.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
[flagged]
- gblargg 1y ago
  I don't think you understood the point of the comment you replied to. It was two-fold: what authentic means, and why people prefer imperfect people to be authentic than present a false image. Even your disrespectful response shows its value: you can get feedback that might actually help you improve.
marcus_holmes 1y ago
My point is that your definition of "authenticity" seems to include behaviour that is plain inconsiderate of other people. I think there's a line there. You can wear what you like, think what you like, speak how you like, but only behave how you like up to the point where your behaviour negatively affects other people. If you want to listen to shit music in your own home, you do you, that's fine. But inflicting it on everyone else in a train carriage is not "being authentic" it's "being an asshole". You're not expressing your true self in a brave way that should be admired. You're annoying everyone around you by being selfish. It's a huge difference.

5350-uiop-1130 1y ago

70–90% of people have functional object impermanence, and at least 50% have no inner dialogue no self awareness, no reflection. just impulse. me, me, me. blasting music in public, talking at max volume, slamming doors. taking 20 mins to use an ATM when it takes me 30 seconds. and so on.

bsdz 1y ago
> at least 50% have no inner dialogue I'm not sure I trust this. A quick search finds a Psychology Today article about it along with a single reference. I lazily suspect the result is based on some type of questionnaire. The way "chain of thought" is used in LLMs to improve reasoning demonstrates, to me at least, the value of capturing intermediate steps in some rich compressed structure. Nothing beats that than words and sentences (see them or hear them). A lot of ideas can't be captured with just photos alone imho.
keybored 1y ago
A master Buddhist meditator deep in meditation might also have no inner dialogue. I don’t really get the significance of this No Inner Dialogue meme.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
aleksiy123 1y ago
The irony of this comment.

arkey 1y ago

> people who play music/video aloud on public transport But that's not being authentic, that's being plain rude, and there should be a difference. You can be authentic and still respect boundaries and be considerate towards other people. And on the other side, if being rude is your form of authenticity, then you're not authentic, you're just another rude person, probably following a specific type of common behaviour.

netsharc 1y ago
> You can be authentic and still respect boundaries and be considerate towards other people. From the point of view of the douche: why should they do that, for what gain? I suppose if they care about social cohesion they'd care, but on the flip side, people nowadays can seem to violate social norms and still get through life just fine, in the old days they might suffer if society shunned them. Makes me think of the cafe sign that listed prices: "Coffee $5; A coffee please: $3; Good day, I would like a coffee please: $1", being pleasant helps when doing business as well, people will even avoid doing business with you if you're unpleasant (except maybe if your soup is really really good). Maybe the "loneliness epidemic" means that people are developing a tolerance to the unavailability of pleasant social interactions. Now it makes me think maybe the Black Mirror social scoring ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcspUD0kF7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcspUD0kF7g ) is a useful way to punish douches after all.

woooooo 1y ago

> trying to shame them into not doing it is pointless. Speak for yourself, its at least satisfying. Insult their choice of music and provide suggestions for what they should play instead.

marcus_holmes 1y ago
It gets tiring. I'm willing to fight a certain amount for some kind of social norms that respect other people. But honestly, if every bus trip needs to turn into a confrontation, it gets old fast.
- woooooo 1y ago
  Fair enough, I actually only did that once or twice.

andy99 1y ago

The music thing is, I think, a related phenomenon I'll call the demolition man effect. Most people now are so weak and nonconfrontational that someone willing to break social norms can just walk all over them. This is because nobody wants to stand up for themselves or more fundamentally rock the boat. The shamelessness thing is similar but fundamentally different in that it gets a following. Everyone thinks the kid/boomer without headphones is an ass, they just don't say it.

gadders 1y ago

Unfortunately everyone mocked Karens who at least were a force for good in enforcing social norms and etiquette.

potato3732842 1y ago
Karens got mocked because busybody and entitled types expecting trying to enforce various sorts of compliance upon other people in ways far beyond what is reasonable is such a common occurrence and annoys so many people that mocking them resonates. Same reason you'll never see a standup comedian who doesn't mock intimate relationships somehow.

potato3732842 1y ago

>Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport. >In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it. Your equivalent ilk of decades past complained about "kids these days" and their boomboxes in public in basically the same way you're doing now.

badc0ffee 1y ago
It's not one guy with a boombox now, it's 7 people with TikTok open on their phones.
marcus_holmes 1y ago
It's not kids - if it was then sure, I could write this off as "kids these days". But it's all sorts, all ages, all cultures. Obviously some folks always wanted to do this.

const_cast 1y ago

The problem with shame is that the people who use shame as a tool do not understand how to use it conservatively. You see, they shame for playing music in public. Okay, great. But they also shame for your weight, your sexuality, the color of your skin. Your job, your hobbies, your family. Your clothing, your skin, your hair. And now, shame, as a tool, has been worn down to its bones. Of course then society at large begins to reject it.

marcus_holmes 1y ago
Yeah, agree. It has been overused, and it's good that that doesn't work any more. I'd like the line to be drawn just a little further back, though, please ;)
jakeydus 1y ago
I think the primary difference is shaming someone for behavior that impacts others and shaming someone for behavior that is none of my business.