[s1artibartfast]

There's a huge difference between being yourself and not having a filter.

I absolutely think people should be themselves at work. In my mind this generally means not acting like a robot or treating other people like toasters. It is psychologically crushing to operate in a they're all workplace where people do that. The best managers I've ever had were those I could discuss my emotions or that of my team with.

That said, there are clear lines about workplace decorum.

It's one thing to say " I find this new Direction very frustrating for reasons x y and z, and the team morale is low", but another thing to say "i think the new leader is a dipshit idiot"

For some reason people think being yourself means having no filter

[tchalla]

The challenge is that your line for filter is another person's line for censorship and a third person's line for "not being yourself".

[s1artibartfast]

Yep, that is inherent in the Human Condition. Other people have different opinions than mine.

I mostly curious why people seem to expect a world free of this challenge, and look for obviously wrong black and white rules to avoid dealing with that reality.

[ikr678]

I'm now in a team where I don't particularly like any of my coworkers due to all the things they have shared over the years which has accumulated in a persistent ick about all of them.

I can work with them fine, I just don't want to share any part of myself with these people and invite commentary from people I do not respect.

[Lutger]

Exactly. The 'whole self' also includes a deliberate thinking mind. People often equate feeling free and being yourself with losing all inhibitions and restraint. That may free great for a while, to unburden yourself, but its a strict subset of your capabilities.

[Archer6621]

You are still not being yourself though, if you have to suppress the tendency to call someone a dipshit idiot. It is arguable whether the "self" in that case needs some work or not, but the idea about "being yourself" is being able to express yourself freely without giving it any conscious thought. Think of the setting where you are with close friends, and let the conversation flow freely. Having to filter yourself is the opposite of that. In reality, you can never truly be yourself in an environment that you do not own without risking dire consequences or opposition (even when you own it, this eventually becomes the case). So I think not being yourself is a good and necessary compromise for harmonious functioning within an organ, and there is no need to soften this by saying that having a filter is different from not being yourself.

The real challenge lies in properly tuning the strength of this filter, being deliberate with it and knowing what can be said, and what cannot be said. The people who act like robots err on the side of extreme caution, and are unwilling to invest time and effort into tuning and developing this filter. They also don't realize that this makes it impossible to connect with people, to their own demise.

[s1artibartfast]

Maybe this is a cognitive or neurodivergence issue. Most intelligent people can filter without any conscious work.

I might act different if I am at a house party versus playing with my newborn, but I consider those both to be me, just in different situations.

Similarly, if I'm playing chess, I don't following the rules as contrary to my identity. I see myself as a flexible and adaptive problem solver.

I think you are on to something though and can imagine a person having a different self-identity that is less adaptive.

[Archer6621]

I believe that this is the case where the "self" needs some more work, as in it is not well-adapted enough to its total environment yet. This can be due to a myriad of reasons, neurodivergence or other neurological problems are often a possible culprit due to an altered cognition, but don't need to be. If someone just doesn't give a crap or doesn't understand the consequences of some kind of behavior (or the lack thereof) in some situation, they will not be inclined to develop a more appropriate behavior for that situation.

[s1artibartfast]

I think that's a good way of putting it. It explains why that particular type of Behavioral inflexibility struck me as immature or coddled.