Hacker News Reader

> I think it's pretty clear that the author doesn't really understand what "be yourself" means

Well of course. As a phrase, it's meaning isn't clear just from the words in the same way that "give me that pen", "make your bed soon after waking up", or "brush your teeth twice a day" are. All of those scentences are made of phrases and words that have meanings and the meaning of the scentence follows from composing the meanings of its parts.

"Be yourself" as a piece of advice has a literal meaning equivalent to "breathe and metabolize"-- a person is by definition themselves. So the phrase must mean something other than it's literal meaning, but what?

As an adolescent, the only explanation I ever got was "don't try to be something you're not". The problem here, is that it contradicts so much other advice in your life. As an example, 16-year-old me was a shitty driver. Should I have stopped trying to be so shitty at driving? Of course! The phrase argues against growth in general and I'd seen people use it as an excuse to avoid growth. So 16-year-old me concluded that the advice was meaningless and that the people saying it weren't saying much of anything besides "chill out, relax".

But considering who poorly explained it is and how often it is given as grand life advice, it isn't at all surprising to hear someone else take a drastically different meaning from it.

It's mostly supposed to mean "grow toward (and in the mean-time, fake being) the person you'd be most excited to be if all social knock-on effects were disregarded." Likely, this is a version of yourself improved along all the axes that will most enhance the sense of natural, intuitive engagement you feel when doing the things you love.

It can also be phrased more directly as: "don't grow toward (or fake being) a version of yourself that you imagine will benefit you socially, if that hypothetical person does not also feel more engaged with, and excited about, being alive."

(Or, in short: if you really love [fun activity] and hate [boring activity], don't pretend to love [boring activity] or hate [fun activity] just to impress someone. Because you'll still love [fun activity] and hate [boring activity], but now you'll be forced to deal with [boring activity] all day while carefully avoiding [fun activity].)

...

That being said, this advice is nearly meaningless to children or teenagers, because it really can't mean anything until you 1. know what engages you, and 2. have enough life experience to build an intuition for what sort of things you might grow to love.

It's sort of the same as the advice "write what you know": it only means something when you actually know (i.e. have lived through) at least one thing worth writing down.

> It's mostly supposed to mean "grow toward (and in the mean-time, fake being) the person you'd be most excited to be if all social knock-on effects were disregarded."

This is basically why I hate "be yourself". It's a tip most often given to people who are socially awkward or insecure, but the intended message is subtle and not present in the actual statement. It's advice that's least clear to the people who need it most.

It's kind of fascinating to watch these conversations unfold, because you can see in real time what hoops people have had to jump through to make the phrase have value when it clearly, on its face, doesn't carry that value.

It's one of those phrases that people eventually understand to mean something useful, but where that meaning isn't communicated by the phrase itself. People continue to propagate it because it's the "handle" they have for that idea, and they think that because they now have a meaning associated with it, that will make the words magically communicate said meaning to the person they're speaking to.

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

The best version of this I've ever heard was something along the lines of: "Dont try to beat Mark Zuckerberg at being Mark Zuckerberg, he'll always win." What I take from that is that the way to compete is to build a successful business, not to be someone in particular. When we compete, we each have our own set of strengths and weaknesses. I have mine and Mark Zuckerberg has his. What that means is that I have strengths where he has weakness. Why would I not apply that strength? Just to be more like him? A simple example is that I understand that people (for better or worse) judge you for how you look. Therefore, I dont go into professional meeting with people I dont know wearing a t-shirt and jeans.

Hang on, a simple example of not trying to be Zuckerberg is not wearing shirts and jeans to meetings?

(I didn't know he does that, but I guess you can do whatever you like in his position. Just look at what he's doing with our data and valuable human attention.)

I think the point is that you shouldn't dress in a certain way for a certain occasion because some idol does it. You should understand why they dress like they do and why it works (or doesn't) and then make up your own mind what makes sense for you.

Breaking the rules can be very powerful, but if you're showing up to a VC meeting in a bathrobe, you damn well better be bringing the next Facebook with you.

In the most common usage "be yourself" means "don't be fake", or "don't try to be like someone you think you're supposed to be."

This phrase is more complement than advice. The intent of the person saying it is, "I like you, and others will like you too."

Occasionally, but far less common, it is actually meant as advice. This might happen when the person saying it has seen you (or someone like you) being stiff, awkward, or overly self-conscious when attempting some new skill. In this context it can be interpreted as, "don't stress", "don't over think it", or "you can do it any way you like."

It's one of those phrases that only has meaning in the context of the person speaking, like the greeting "how are you doing?" (usually not an actual question, in the US).

In most cases you can safely disregard it.

Personally, I usually choose to interpret it as "relax, you're doing great," and if I ever say it that's how I mean it.

>The phrase argues against growth in general

How so? Is who you are as a person one who stagnates? To me it would seem you have it backwards. Being a 16 year old shitty driver and pretending that you have nothing to learn about driving would be against growth. Being a 16 year old shitty driver who knows they are shit is being yourself. Hopefully wanting to get better is a part of who you are, so you do that too.

Being yourself is two things. Being honest about your knowledge, capabilities, and goals. Set your own goals according to your own desires and needs, not those forced on you by others.

The literal phrase argues against growth, not the interpretation of the phrase. You can see both sides of the argument here.

It's two words - there're a lot of ways to interpret something so ambiguous.

>Have you ever seen a really effective kindergarten teacher? Or salesman? Or engineer? They are naturally inclined to do what they do and have the instincts through education and experience to just do what others need to think about.

I disagree, certainly great salespeople, teachers and engineers make what they do seem natural and effortless, but whenever I talk to them I discover that they put a lot of thought, effort and practice into molding themselves until their craft seems natural. In fact, Tom Hopkins, one of the greatest salespeople who has written several sales books told about how he didn't seem like the person who was right for the job, and he was making no sales, but then he decided to research, work and practice until he got good at it.

In fact I believe this whole thing about "be yourself" or "be true to yourself" is a bunch of modernest rubbish. There is no "true self" to be true to. We are in control of who we are and we can choose to mold ourselves into the image of what we want to be. We are not at the mercy of some amorphous inner "true self" that this decides for us.

> make what they do seem natural and effortless, but whenever I talk to them I discover that they put a lot of thought, effort and practice into molding themselves

Absolutely. These are trades that require heavy training and hard word. But the essence of the parent comment was that the immense amount of effort required to become proficient in these trades would be insurmountable if not for a deep passion for the subject.

But the essence of the parent comment was that the immense amount of effort required to become proficient in these trades would be insurmountable if not for a deep passion for the subject.

I'm proficient at many things that I hate doing simply out of necessity or profitability. Unless we define "deep passion" to include necessity and finding ways to make ends meet, then it doesn't apply. If we do define it that way "deep passion" proves too much fails to be a useful descriptor.

It seems like less of a leap to suggest that we often have the luxury of using choosing our passions to become proficient at.

I agree with you very strongly, but I want to reframe it a bit: the fact that there is no "true self" and "we are in control of who we are" is basically the modern condition, and the 'be yourself' mantra is one attempt at an answer to this.

"Be yourself" would work well on someone like you, a self reflecting individual. Unfortunately, most of the people I know would use "Be yourself" as an excuse to justify their shortcomings (mood swings, laziness, selfishness, etc.)

A friend was "recently" working on one of them "big firms" that had "be yourself" posters plastered all around the place. He soon realized that what they really meant was: be a sociopath, be ruthless, go for blood/glory, be whatever you are (but-not-really-better-go-for-blood-like-the-big-bosses-around-here).

Worse part is that they were frequently hosting school children where they were brainwashing 10yo kids to become ruthless blood-thirsty-money-making-drones.. (investing in future generations to pass down the torch!)

> It doesn't mean that you let your Id rule and disrespect everyone around you. It means to do things natural to you and in line with your instincts.

> Have you ever seen a really effective kindergarten teacher? Or salesman? Or engineer? They are naturally inclined to do what they do and have the instincts through education and experience to just do what others need to think about.

I rather be frank: You identify "use your insticts" with "be yourself". But claiming with your examples this is a good strategy in general means having a trendemous selection bias. Most people simply don't have such insticts - only few people are very empathic, i.e. for many people "use your insticts"/"be yourself" simply leads by definition to problems. For example many "nerds" really "use their insticts"/"be theirselves". The fact that "nerdiness" is considered a bad trait rather falsifies your claim.

> the author doesn't really understand what "be yourself" means.

i.e. the problem is that people operate with simplistic mottos.

It's how you create dogmatism, ideology and religion.

Christianity might be the best example of a religion created with a simplistic motto writen on an restaurant napkin. Learned that from judaism which used two napkins.