
Unless You’re Oprah, ‘Be Yourself’ Is Terrible Advice (2016) - teslacar
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/unless-youre-oprah-be-yourself-is-terrible-advice.html?ne
======
Spooky23
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.

~~~
afarrell
> 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.

~~~
derefr
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.

~~~
diminoten
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.

~~~
derefr
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.

Come to think of it, it's a lot like a zen koan in that way. Which reminds me
of this:
[http://cramul.us/post/113365508182/a-koan](http://cramul.us/post/113365508182/a-koan)

------
RangerScience
"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."

~~~
Indy_Dh
> "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.

~~~
koolba
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.

~~~
wolfgke
> 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.

~~~
chongli
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.

~~~
colomon
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?

~~~
chongli
_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.

------
pizzetta
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.

~~~
katzgrau
Totally agree, and I'm glad you wrote it so that I didn't have to.

------
songzme
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.

~~~
maxxxxx
"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.

~~~
fersho311
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'.

------
dgreensp
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.

~~~
stagbeetle
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.

~~~
peternilson
"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?

~~~
stagbeetle
Even suffering is not universal. There are many groups who have overcome their
subjective pain and no longer feel it.

We don't all suffer (but in the practical sense we do).

------
hosh
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.

~~~
komali2
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.

~~~
omarchowdhury
In Buddhism, there wouldn't be any individuals at all, just _tanha_ , or:
craving, thirst, _desire_.

Desire for what?

For sense objects. For existence. For non-existence.

The cessation of this craving is _nirvana_...

~~~
hosh
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.

------
peterwwillis
I liked this Bill Cosby line:

    
    
      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.

~~~
liberte82
If you were happy being an asshole, why did you want to change?

~~~
peterwwillis
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...

------
ada1981
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.

~~~
morbidhawk
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.

~~~
ada1981
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.

------
partycoder
According to the big five personality traits
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)),
neuroticism plays against you in most work related settings.

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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H3PdkezKQ8)

------
habitue
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.

------
cowpig
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.

------
ouid
It doesn't even satisfy the basic requirements for advice.

------
peternilson
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.

~~~
Icedcool
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.

You create your own hell.

------
ddingus
How about we be genuine, express good intent and mean it?

When we do that, almost all difficult scenarios are either avoided, or are
recoverable.

~~~
iamdave
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)?

~~~
wallflower
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.

~~~
iamdave
_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._

Are you out of your mind??

But good suggestion (but also, are you actually out of your mind? I'm already
fidgeting just imagining myself trying to do this)

~~~
wallflower
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.

I will stop now.

~~~
iamdave
>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.

Fact is: I just cherish brevity when speaking.

/Casual shrug

------
jyriand
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.

------
aryehof
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"?

------
jonmc12
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]

[1]
[http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddoc...](http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789401791298-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1471906-p176753492)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcjrN7X7Rc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcjrN7X7Rc)

------
theonemind
"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.

------
komali2
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."

------
Icedcool
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.

------
macco
If you can be Batman, always be Batman!

That means: Always be the best you can be. Be yourself is just a lazy excuse.

------
logfromblammo
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.

------
Raphmedia
"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.

~~~
jm_l
"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.

------
cholantesh
If Oprah's being genuine about her love for vacuous advice and sham cures,
perhaps she shouldn't be herself, either.

------
alexpetralia
I always found "Become yourself" more useful

------
amelius
> We are in the Age of Authenticity

I must be in a different age then, with all the hyping and pretending on
facebook, and all the news-faking.

------
kolbe
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.

------
prepend
I think the issue is in taking this expression as a binary, even Oprah doesn't
do that.

I've met people who are "being authentic" but are just being jerks and
claiming authenticity overrules the need for decorum.

Authenticity is important but still requires taxt and harmonization.

------
andai
To be yourself, you must know yourself.

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"!

------
tzakrajs
People say be yourself because their advice can never not be taken. It is a
tautology.

------
aarpmcgee
There's no wisdom here.

------
BurningFrog
How well "being yourself" works depends a lot on who you are.

------
paulddraper
I think it's said "be yourself, but be your best self"

------
sebringj
"Be yourself" != "Be tactless and unaware of others' feelings"

Instead, it means follow what makes you happy, do what makes you happy, get in
where you fit in, etc.

------
wallflower
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).

------
jmeis
It seems "being yourself" is poorly defined, which to me makes it kind of a
useless piece of advice (unless of course you define it first)

------
nnd
“Without lies, marriages would crumble, workers would be fired, egos would be
shattered, governments would collapse.”

What's wrong with that?

~~~
nthcolumn
It isn't true.

------
magoghm
I don't have an option. I don't know how to be somebody else.

------
dorianm
"Be the change that you want to see in the world"

Sounds more logical to me

~~~
wolfgke
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.

------
simonh
Use your personality as an asset.

------
fouadf
It works for Trump

------
jmcdiesel
Is it me, or is this just a massive projection?

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
A related question with the same answer:

Is the right answer authenticity or sincerity?

Answer: both.

------
dennyis
I am fuckin' Oprah

