[b_e_n_t_o_n]

It's not shamelessness, it's authenticity. In today's curated, hyperreal society people desperately crave imperfections, cracks in the armour, they want something real, something human. They desire vulnerability, in part because it gives them courage to also be vulnerable, to not be afraid of judgement and rejection, and the freedom to be themselves.

And I think it's actionable advice for all of us. Be genuine, be vulnerable, and don't be afraid to be your true self. People like that.

[marcus_holmes]

Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport.

In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it.

In our enlightened modern times, people don't give a shit, and trying to shame them into not doing it is pointless. They are shameless about their selfishness, and apparently that's OK now.

With the result, as others have said, that we end up in the worst box on the Prisoner's Dilemma choices: we all have to put with other people's shitty taste in music and no-one gets any peace and quiet.

I don't get how we write this up as "authenticity" without also concluding that these people authentically have no consideration for the other people around them, and are therefore bad people. I certainly do not want these people to be authentic around me, I would very much like them to have some shame and maintain a considerate front, even if that's not their true nature.

[arkey]

> people who play music/video aloud on public transport

But that's not being authentic, that's being plain rude, and there should be a difference.

You can be authentic and still respect boundaries and be considerate towards other people.

And on the other side, if being rude is your form of authenticity, then you're not authentic, you're just another rude person, probably following a specific type of common behaviour.

[netsharc]

> 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.

[const_cast]

The problem with shame is that the people who use shame as a tool do not understand how to use it conservatively.

You see, they shame for playing music in public. Okay, great.

But they also shame for your weight, your sexuality, the color of your skin. Your job, your hobbies, your family. Your clothing, your skin, your hair.

And now, shame, as a tool, has been worn down to its bones. Of course then society at large begins to reject it.

[jakeydus]

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

[marcus_holmes]

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 ;)

[tropicalfruit]

70–90% of people have functional object impermanence, and at least 50% have no inner dialogue

no self awareness, no reflection. just impulse. me, me, me.

blasting music in public, talking at max volume, slamming doors. taking 20 mins to use an ATM when it takes me 30 seconds. and so on.

[bsdz]

> 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.

[aleksiy123]

The irony of this comment.

[keybored]

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.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

Authenticity doesn't mean you act in a way that the majority approves of, in fact it's often the opposite case. It also doesn't make any presuppositions about the morality of specific behaviour. To be authentic is to be your true self, despite what others think which requires bravery and that is something people admire. If something is considered shameful is a subjective judgement about behaviours that may or may not be authentic.

In fact, people who act authentically are often liked not despite of but because of their flaws. To be human is to be flawed, we're all guilty. And it turns out a lot of people crave permission to not be perfect.

[marcus_holmes]

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.

[gadders]

Unfortunately everyone mocked Karens who at least were a force for good in enforcing social norms and etiquette.

[potato3732842]

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.

[andy99]

The music thing is, I think, a related phenomenon I'll call the demolition man effect. Most people now are so weak and nonconfrontational that someone willing to break social norms can just walk all over them. This is because nobody wants to stand up for themselves or more fundamentally rock the boat.

The shamelessness thing is similar but fundamentally different in that it gets a following. Everyone thinks the kid/boomer without headphones is an ass, they just don't say it.

[woooooo]

> trying to shame them into not doing it is pointless.

Speak for yourself, its at least satisfying. Insult their choice of music and provide suggestions for what they should play instead.

[marcus_holmes]

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.

[woooooo]

Fair enough, I actually only did that once or twice.

[potato3732842]

>Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport.

>In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it.

Your equivalent ilk of decades past complained about "kids these days" and their boomboxes in public in basically the same way you're doing now.

[badc0ffee]

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

[marcus_holmes]

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.

[dkarl]

It's a very specific form of authenticity. It's the authenticity of people who don't make an effort, who don't feel any need to try, who know that people are going to accept them and look up to them no matter how shitty they are.

But for regular people it's a fantasy. Because it only works if you're rich.

[robocat]

What a weird viewpoint.

> But for regular people it's a fantasy

So for authentic people it's a fantasy???

I can only imagine that either

(a) you struggle to differentiate fake authenticity from authentic fakeness

or (b) perhaps you don't have enough authentic non-wealthy acquaintances.

Some welloff people countersignal successfully. But many don't because status signaling is difficult (evolutionarily).

> it only works if you're rich

And you imply that you think that people look up to the rich - however many people don't - perhaps that says something about your own pretensions?

Disclaimer: I'm a well off geek - definitely not rich and I'm rather poor at recognizing or playing status games.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

> 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.

[dkarl]

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.

[potato3732842]

>It's the authenticity of people who don't make an effort, who don't feel any need to try, who know that people are going to accept them and look up to them no matter how shitty they are.

Or they know other people won't accept them regardless and they don't care.

It's one of those communication patterns you see at the top and the bottom and if your life consists of working in an office, living in a condo and golfing on the weekends you'll basically never run across anyone that does it.

[dkarl]

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.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

That isn't true in my experience. Authenticity doesn't require wealth in order to land.

[anal_reactor]

I am a very direct person, and conversations with me often include very personal topics. I've noticed that at the beginning yes, this attracts at least some people who want to have serious conversations, but after some time it simply creates a new culture with new set of rules where you wear a different kind of mask. Everyone claims to crave authenticity, but when actually faced with it, most people back off.

[thisisit]

This sounds like what social media mangers are telling their clients - If you are acting stupid/dumb/shameless and attracting people through rage bait, you are being authentic. Lots of prank channels who harass people shamelessly are certainly going for “authentic” reactions.

[tudorizer]

You might be applying some reverse psychology by claiming shameless == authentic. Does that translate to having shame (in the interpretation of being aware or norms and being considerate to those around) == not authentic?

This "freedom to be themselves" works very well when priviledge is at stake.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

Shameless != authentic.

[SeanSullivan86]

Senior management doesn't like it, in my experience. But I agree it makes sense for many interactions.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

Not everyone will appreciate your authentic self, that's the inherent risk which requires bravery to overcome. It might also be simply not worth the risk, but either way you should act in a way that you can respect. There are things I wouldn't do because I consider them too risky, but I can still respect myself because I'm the one making the judgement call. It's when I act inauthentically because of the fear, not the risk, that I lose respect for myself and I do my best to avoid it.

[mmaunder]

The legal fiction that is the corporation is the antithesis of authenticity, and the brand they invest so heavily in, its mask. Having an authentic employee risks removing the mask.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

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

[ebcode]

Ding ding ding ding!

[apical_dendrite]

No, it's shamelessness.

Shame exists to keep us from engaging in antisocial behavior.

If your true self is a liar, a cheat, a cruel person, then you should absolutely be afraid to be your true self.

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

That's still authenticity though. What's not authentic is people who conceal those aspects of themselves, and it's also far more dangerous.

[dana-s]

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.

[kaffekaka]

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.

[arkey]

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?

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

Yes.

No.

[arkey]

What if my authentic feeling and behaviour was to slap you in the face and laugh at you because you answered 'Yes.' to an 'either/or' question?

The problem is that for humanity, unrestrained behaviour will very quickly degrade into horrible things. There's scientific evidence for that, if everyday life is not proof enough for you.

[metalman]

shamelessness and counter signalling can be seen in another phenominon where the difference between bieng crazy or eccentric(authentic) is a million $