I spend quite many hours reading /r9k/, and while the majority of their posts are angry NEETs sperging out, I found out they have one legit criticism about modern life. I am refering to the "Be yourself" mentality.
Why is it told that, in order to become succesful, one have to "Be yourself", when actually trying to fit into the social standards of your society works far better if you want to become a well-adjusted individual? What is the reasoning behind the "Be yourself" mentality?
Most of the "Chads" /r9k/ speak of are actually people that doesnt deviate too much of the social norm, so I personally cannot find the correlation between being oneself and becoming a sane, lovable person.
They haven't discovered anything new or special, they are just people who have trouble understanding themselves and what they truly believe in and so they posses personalities that have no stability and sort of free float anywhere their mood or others mood goes.
Knowing how you want to present yourself not just to others but yourself, and working on it, is key.
Faggot.
Jose Perez
>What is the reasoning behind the "Be yourself" mentality?
To "be yourself" is to defend against change, which is regressive and it's easy to capitalize off of a group that is psychically formative (because they are prone to cycles of disappointment and unmet goals, hence aspirational advertising).
But fitting into the social standards of society won't make you successful (unless your standards for success are just having sex and moving out of your mom's house). Being *aware* of those standards and being able to use that awareness to your advantage can help. But also totally dismissing those standards in pursuit of whatever it is you want to be successful at can help.
Zachary Gutierrez
I am aware the subject can seem a bit picky, considering that it is part of the /r9k/ culture. But I believe it is a genuine question to ask.
This board is for Philosophy too. And here I am asking about the origins of this particular 20th Century Thought that believes that acting according to one self will grant social success. Because you get told this, from movies to books to TV hosts to self-help books. Its a type of Pop Philosophy I would like to discuss.
Yeah, thats the idea, summing up.
Dylan Perez
>This board is for Philosophy too
no it isn't. that's /hist/
> this particular 20th Century Thought that believes that acting according to one self will grant social success
it's doesn't guarantee social success. it just says being authentic is a good thing. "be yourself" is not philosophy.
>To "be yourself" is to defend against change
just no.
Aiden Cook
>this board is about philosophy too Yes, actual written works of philosophy not some dumbass, underage, autistic ideas perpetuated by losers on /r9k/.
Lincoln Brooks
"be yourself" is the shittiest advice you can give to a chronic loser
those people need their butt kicked so they can get their shit in order
being their current selves obviously hasn't worked for them so far
Ryan Wood
Unless the underage, autistic loser somehow manages to print his ideas on some paper.
Joshua Clark
>just no.
Why "just no", edgelord?
Jace Cook
>implying there is a "yourself" to be >implying there's such a thing as "authenticity"
Dylan Lopez
>just be yourself >I don't know I am
Luis Davis
authenticity is not turning the volume up on your character defects, it is the deflating of them.
Dylan Harris
/Thread
Nicholas Myers
Everyone ITT should read Carl Rogers' On Becoming a Person.
Most deeply eloquent work on actualization, relationships, development, life, therapy, etc. Fascinating read on becoming yourself.
Charles Bailey
It's good advice, not if you want to be liked, but if you want to be free of neuroses regarding your relationship to society in general.
Authenticity exists, just not in the abstract.
Owen Morales
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "be yourself" unironically outside of fiction.
Jack Richardson
Japanese students have a saying that's basically The nail that stands out the most gets hammered down.
Landon Campbell
Australia has a similar one, tall poppy syndrome.
Owen Cruz
yes, unless
Nathaniel Clark
unenviable
Charles Hernandez
>be yourself translation: show your flaws so that you can be weighed down by them and manipulated more easily
Michael Hall
...
Hudson Garcia
The way I see the whole "be yourself" thing is more telling people to embrace their individuality in regards to things like hobbies or beliefs. If you enjoy something or believe something even after genuine consideration then it's better not to pretend the opposite for the sake of conformity.
What it doesn't mean, which some people seem to take it as, is "feel free to dump all your shit on others and expect them to put up with it" but I often see people take it that way.
Ethan Walker
>no it isn't. that's /hist/ No, this is for Philosophy. You need to reference specific works or authors in the OP tho.
