Unless You’re Oprah, ‘Be Yourself’ Is Terrible Advice (2016)

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

According to the 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

[1] http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddoc... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcjrN7X7Rc

"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.

If you can be Batman, always be Batman!

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

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" 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.

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

I always found "Become yourself" more useful

> 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.

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.

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.

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"!

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

There's no wisdom here.

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

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

"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.

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).

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)

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

What's wrong with that?

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

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

Sounds more logical to me

Use your personality as an asset.

It works for Trump

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

I am fuckin' Oprah