Authenticity (psychology): Underrated, Overrated?

[Joshe]

Prediction is control/safety.

Safety → control → prediction → legibility → curiosity

😂

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Prediction is control/safety.

Safety → control → prediction → legibility → curiosity

😂

The survival brain! Ambiguity is not appreciated from the lymbric brains perspective.

Quote

I'm very interested in this, but it's also very complex. 

Yes. Huge topic. 

[Rafael Thundercat]

U@Natasha Tori Maru

Drop this here, only because I like to make connections

 

Fear of abandonment.

Doesn't just show up in our relationships.

It shows up in our bodies and it can become dis-ease.

 this is how I see fear of abandonment quietly shaping our health.

In early life, being abandoned by our caregivers actually threatens our survival.

Therefore, love equates to safety.

So we do what we need to, to preserve love. We repress the parts of ourselves we perceive as unlovable. However, this is often a misunderstanding. Sometimes a caregiver withdraws for reasons that have nothing to do with us — but a child's experience is not rational. It's direct.

We sacrifice authenticity to preserve love. The nervous system never forgets this.

We become adults that are terrified to be authentic because deep in the roots of our experience is the misunderstanding that authenticity may lead to abandonment.

And while the mind knows that abandonment does not threaten our survival, the inner child does not.

The inner child lives on in the spiritual quadrant of health — where past, present and future are all happening now.

And when we feel as if love may be taken away, the nervous system sounds the alarm. The endocrine system translates that inner child's memory into chemistry — and our fear of abandonment enters the physical quadrant of our health.

Unlike the spiritual quadrant, which is timeless, the physical quadrant is present.

So that inner child's confusion about what she needs to do to stay safe shows up in the body.

The body responds to the wound years — sometimes decades — after the original injury.

The immune system, the adrenals, the gut and the skin do what they need to do to protect that inner child.

And this is why fear of abandonment often presents as autoimmunity, allergies, adrenal fatigue, food sensitivities, weight retention, disordered eating, and skin issues.

This is how the wounds of the past shape the present.

This is how the wound of the root chakra quietly shapes your health.

 

[eos_nyxia]

Interesting questions!

On 2026-09-02 at 8:00 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Authenticity. I find it ill-defined. The word is tossed about flippantly. EVERYWHERE. It is spoken about on these forums frequently.

For what it is worth, I tend to look at these type of ideas within the context of the history of ideas first. I was raised with the intimate exposure to two philosophical traditions: Chinese and Continental (aka. "Western") philosophy.

The idea of the moral necessity/ imperative to "express yourself" wholly and freely comes from the Romantic tradition, which itself was a response to the Enlightenment. The latter shifted the locus of control from God and destiny to the individual (and by extension the concept of individual responsibility) and the revitalization of "Reason" as a primary virtue.

Quote

Authenticity IS NOT just expressing the contents of your mind. "I say what I feel", "I refuse to change for anyone", "I do what feels natural", "I am brutally honest" or "I don't care what anyone thinks, this is who I am" - all of these are not it in my definition.

Individualism. I do this, I am that. I, I, I, etc. 

In the Daoist tradition, it is also about returning to what is true and pure (in the way that an uncultivated being is, like a very young child or an animal) but you don't need to turn that energy outward at all. You really often don't need to act. You don't need to push for people to see or hear you, in fact, you ought not to push and force at all, because that is in direct resistance to the Way (the natural flow of nature, life, the universe, etc). 

Daoism is also about inner transmutation and self refining to "perfection", but not through the psychoemotionally constipated notions of "effort" Westerns tend to have. 

Actually, now that I think about it, this type of beingness tends to be coded is very "feminine" here. In the Chinese tradition, this is both the yin and the yang, but whole and in balance.

Quote

Philosophy wise I don't think to be authentic we require a true fixed self. Values change. We change. What is authentic will change. Existentially I see it creeping toward "am I taking ownership of the fact I am choosing?"

I was going to say that I don't believe this either, but it depends what you think the self is made up of. Do you have anything in you that aligns with the belief in a "soul", or some essential aspect that survives death?

To me, what people generally call a "personality" is mostly a social costume. If they have no sense of anything else beyond that, well, that is why they are trapped within it and must suffer with it, because it always eventually becomes a burden in some way if you can't shed it.

Quote

My closest definition: Authenticity is the constant, background practice of shrinking the space between what I experience and what I understand myself to currently value. What I claim to be, and how I actually behave... while remaining willing to amend my understanding of me.

Why is there a gap there at all? Do you think it has to be there?  (I do experience this same gap myself too, at times.)

Quote

What is Authenticity (in the romantic sense, and interpersonally)? Do you think it is overrated/underrated? Only appropriate at certain times or phases of connection?

Would love everyone's thoughts around this loaded topic as it applies to dating, courtship, romance, relationships, attraction etc.

Philosophically, I follow both in my own way, but I wholeheartedly hold the perspective that the Daoist way is "more true". I go through phases of "expressing myself" in the way you described above mainly to relieve pent up energy, but there ideally would not be an "inner" and "outer" self at all due to the congruence principle you mentioned and also generally having all of your aspects integrated rather than segregated in some fashion from each other. Ideally, you would have just enough "structure" (or "mind") to move through this world smoothly and with purpose, and no extra deadweight at all. Wherever I am at now inevitably effects all of my relationships, but often not in a positive way.

Edited 8 hours ago by eos_nyxia

[MuadDib]

On 9/3/2026 at 1:00 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Authenticity. I find it ill-defined. The word is tossed about flippantly. EVERYWHERE. It is spoken about on these forums frequently.

What is Authenticity (in the romantic sense, and interpersonally)? Do you think it is overrated/underrated? Only appropriate at certain times or phases of connection?

I find it paradoxical. Authenticity requires enough self-awareness to distinguish your genuine values from the forces acting on you (incentive structures). I think it is about congruence. Congruence between what is actually going on inside you, how you live, make choices and relate to the world. So for me it's being able to accurately know what I experience, owning it completely and acting in accordance with it as the situation deeps appropriate. I feel like it needs these clauses because it gets muddled up with just "expressing" without censure.

Authenticity IS NOT just expressing the contents of your mind. "I say what I feel", "I refuse to change for anyone", "I do what feels natural", "I am brutally honest" or "I don't care what anyone thinks, this is who I am" - all of these are not it in my definition.

Philosophy wise I don't think to be authentic we require a true fixed self. Values change. We change. What is authentic will change. Existentially I see it creeping toward "am I taking ownership of the fact I am choosing?"

My closest definition:

Authenticity is the constant, background practice of shrinking the space between what I experience and what I understand myself to currently value. What I claim to be, and how I actually behave... while remaining willing to amend my understanding of me.

Would love everyone's thoughts around this loaded topic as it applies to dating, courtship, romance, relationships, attraction etc.

 

This reminds me of a YouTube lecture I watched some years ago on “genuine pretending” that @tsuki shared describing identity formation as an inherently paradoxical and incongruent process of performance and experience. It also described three main “technologies” of identity formation we have today and how they sit in a historical context, namely sincerity, authenticity and prolificity. I will try to describe the three in this vein with respect to dating, romance, and relationships, as you asked.

The general premise was that all identity is essentially a performance, and that performance is a condition of identity itself. Whatever “sense of self” or identity you inhabit has to be performed in some manner in order to be socially perceptible, whether you are writing, speaking, moving, the clothes you wear, your hairstyle, the car you drive, etc… you are putting on an act to yourself and to the world. You may stop performing an identity or part of your identity you experience as false, but you cannot stop performing altogether; the performance morphs and changes as you move through your journey of life.

There is a subtle sense this model of identity is insincere; however, it’s important to note that identity becomes genuine through it’s enactment. So being “genuine” isn’t some hidden source behind the act, rather, it is the effect produced by performing the identity well enough that it comes to feel real to oneself and to others with a sufficient level of congruity. Hence the phrase “genuine pretending”.

This model of identity rejects the idea that we have a “real self” behind some curtain within us that we then act or express to the world and instead posits that we first act and express, generating experiences that we then either experience as genuine or false. If an act is experienced as false, we then adapt it to be experienced as something more genuine.

The three “identity technologies” are different ways of organising this process, and none of them functions perfectly, as there is no way to construct a “right” identity, yet all of them somehow presume there is a perfect way to “be” in the world, as a person.

 

When forming identity through the process of sincerity, it is organised through externally established social roles. This was far more normal in antiquity and is a normal process most people in both the East and West move through today as we grow up. It can be loosely correlated with stage blue on the spiral. The culture you live in, and its prescribed roles, are strictly adhered to; for example, you could be the town’s clergyman, a fisherman, a husband, a father, a man, a boy or some combination and there will be clearly defined modes of enactment prescribed to you by the culture. Sincerity demands commitment to roles. The external role is what’s REAL and your insides must back it up honestly, otherwise you are considered a dishonest fake.

 

 

Traditional roles under this technology can feel natural or genuine, especially as they correspond to some natural order, for example women in their roles as nurturing mothers to children, men using their physical strength to tend fields, defend territory etc.

Under sincerity, gender roles are assumed to be naturally correct; there is a “right” way to be a father, mother, daughter, husband, wife, etc. This results in the implication that if you are not fitting the roles correctly, it’s YOUR fault and the onus is on YOU to improve your performance to match your role(s). The pathology with this technology is that no man perfectly fits the idealised version of a man, or woman a woman and so on. Add in sexuality and things get worse because … WHAT ABOUT THE GAYS!? The rise of authenticity as an identity technology emerges as a result of these conflicts.

 

 

Authenticity changes the direction from asking “what role am I supposed to inhabit?” to “Who am I really, underneath social expectations?” The implication being that there is a fully fledged, consistent and coherent true self is inside you, waiting to burst forth and impose itself on the world. With this comes the rise of individualism moving away from collectivist tendencies of various cultural norms. Many great works of fiction from the Romantic period idealise this way of thinking.

The inherent flaw with authenticity is almost demands the pursuit of originality. The inside is REAL and the outside must be an accurate representation of it, otherwise, it is considered a hypocritical façade … you’re a super special *one of a kind* snowflake after all, and if you are not bringing the phreshness there’s something wrong with YOU; you’re not being your realest bestest truest self. Not real enough, not original enough, not unique enough etc.

Romantic love is idealized under this model as the meeting of two unique inner souls, each of whom has shed their facades and is seen and loved by the other for who they really are, away from the ideals of love under sincerely constructed identities with clearly defined roles for husband, wife, courtship, gender roles, expected duties to one another etc.

Prolificity emerges with the rise of social media, and roles as they exist in a technocratic society. Like sincerity, it relies heavily on something external to the individual. But the external reference is no longer a stable inherited role from a culture. It is a profile whose meaning depends upon how it is observed, evaluated and circulated within a social environment.

A profile can be a literal social-media profile, but the concept is broader: it is a publicly legible representation of oneself constructed in anticipation of how others will view it. Like a forum post. Profilicity permits a much looser plurality, a person can have a linked in profile, a tinder profile, a professional persona, and various other pseudonymous identities without any requirement that all of them express one underlying fully formed unified self, they can be relatively independent identity formations.

They can be much more dynamic, as contexts change, audiences change, evaluative criteria change, and there is a multiplicity of public spheres, as opposed to a single unified public sphere in the case of sincerity modes of being. Communication is different between each of these sphere’s and they function according to different rationales.

An important aspect of profilicity is the notion of second order observation. Where you create a representation or expression of “yourself” to some profile, and you then join in with the general audience of that sphere to evaluate yourself.  

 

On 9/8/2026 at 3:57 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Rafael Thundercat Shame is a HUGE topic from my research and personal work.

Unlike other emotions, I perceive it operating on multiple psychological levels simultaneously. Which is why it can be so tricky because the source can be different for all of us - and it has a habit of morphing from emotion, to a feeling, to being part of our identity. And it can transition back through all of these forms. To convolute it further - guilt can also be confused for shame and also feed it. The guilt / shame spiral. Shame = "I am wrong". Guilt = "I did wrong". Because shame is about identity "I am" I find it is much harder to work with as a conditioned response.

Shame as a feeling: an unpleasant affective state, often involving exposure, contraction, wanting to hide, or wanting to escape someone's attention.

Shame as an emotion: a level above feeling, which is the raw emotion and often is about how wrong we feel in relation to some standard.

Shame as a part of identity: repeated shame can become an identity. The shame isn't merely an emotion that happens to a person - it is imbedded in their sense of self "I did something shameful > people see me as defective or wrong > I am defective > I am this kind of person who is defective"

Emotions can be real without the interpretation being true - which is a core philosophical distinction that can help us assessing our feelings, emotions and beliefs. Shame is often not based on truth.

Shame can emerge from each of the three identity technologies when the inevitable incongruence and paradox of self generation meets itself. In sincerity, one can feel shame about not fitting a role correctly enough: I’m not a good man, good father, good wife, etc. In authenticity, I am not being myself enough; I am hiding my truest self, my true self isn’t enough in some way, or I am too cowardly to be my real self; under profilicity, I am not recognisable enough; how am I being seen? How do others see others seeing me? What do I look like to the relevant audience in the context of this profile, of all my profiles!?

 

@eos_nyxia Taoism is indeed the way.

Don’t hold any act of self too tightly, or it will enclose you in suffering.