> 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 ) is a useful way to punish douches after all.

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 ;)

I think the primary difference is shaming someone for behavior that impacts others and shaming someone for behavior that is none of my business.

> 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.

The irony of this comment.

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.

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.

[flagged]

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.

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.

It's not one guy with a boombox now, it's 7 people with TikTok open on their phones.

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.

I authentically believe that when I'm angry, I should avoid talking to people in that state, because the me who's seeing things through anger is not a more authentic me than a drunk me would. That said, if you're a liar and conceal that? Yeah worse than being one all the time.

Authenticity can be good, bad, mixed bag, if someone is in reality a liar and decide to be so? Authentically hope they keep themselves away from me.

In this paradigm you describe, should we then strive to be authentic or should we refrain?

Don't you think this would open the doors to an endless amount of bad behaviours?

What is ones "authentic" self is an illusion. Playing loud crap music on the public transport is not "my authentic self", it is an impulse that I should perhaps just suppress instead.

Referring to an "autentic self" does not excuse all kinds of behavior. There exists expressions of some kind of authentic self, sure, but so many things people do are just carelessness or disregard and not actually important to who they are.

> fake authenticity from authentic fakeness

I'm curious what you mean by these, I have an idea but I don't want to misconstrue you.

I think you're confusing authenticity with DGAF, because they both look like the opposite of insecurity.

Trump and Hilton play a DGAF role on TV, but the very fact that they're putting in the effort means that it isn't authentically them. If they really didn't care, we wouldn't know their names, because being wealthy doesn't automatically make you a celebrity. Consider Michael Bloomberg, who briefly flirted with a presidential run, but then discovered that coming from legit middle class roots and achieving orders of magnitude more wealth than Donald Trump meant very little next to the decades of work Trump had put in to build his celebrity status.

As celebrities, they have embraced caring about what people as their job, and for them, part of that job is playing out the ordinary person's fantasy of not having to care what people think -- a role that is only authentically them in the sense that they learned it authentically as spoiled rich children.

A lot of people experience anxiety in their everyday lives over how other people will perceive them. "Did I do a good enough job? What are people saying about me? What do people actually think about me?" When Trump and Hilton ostentatiously act out being able to be dumb and inept and still being treated like they're amazing, it's the perfect inverse of what causes ordinary people anxiety, which makes it a perfect fantasy.

Pretending not to care what other people think is the least authentic thing imaginable. Everyone knows that the people obsess about not giving a fuck are the people who are deeply unhappy with how they're perceived and are fantasizing about a fix.

For secure people, caring what other people think doesn't have to mean being neurotic and miserable about it. It doesn't mean being so cringe that you lose people's respect.

Imagine caring what other people think and not being miserable because of it.

Imagine caring what other people think, and they respect you more for it instead of less.

Top performers care deeply about the opinions of people who matter. CEOs in particular obsess about it. If a CEO acted like your opinion didn't matter, they were probably right, and they were probably too busy thinking about the board and the COO who was angling for an eventual interim job to give you the time of day.

Plenty of documentaries about sporting legends who collected slights and obsessed over proving themselves every day. They cared, and it fueled them.

Trump and Paris Hilton are playing a part for a mass audience who don't know how elites act because they don't know any. Nobody is suggesting that Trump and Paris Hilton don't actually personally care. If they really didn't care, they wouldn't put in the effort. In the years when Paris Hilton was shooting reality shows, she was working a hell of a lot harder than a society heiress needs to. Trump had to keep a president's schedule (a version of it, at least) for four years and came back for more because he wanted to prove he could win again. Being on TV and running for public office are the ultimate forms of caring what other people think. I think the part they play is a part they learned by living it, and is authentic in that sense, but if it was really who they were, instead of being something they act out because they know the masses are impressed by it, we wouldn't know their names.

The rise of corpo-culture is a big factor in the loss of authenticity in society.