>> “I certainly had no idea that being your authentic self could get you as rich as I have become,” Oprah Winfrey said jokingly a few years ago. ”If I’d known that, I’d have tried it a lot earlier.”<p>Look for interviews where she gets angry. Her voice drops an octave and her careful accent disappears. I wouldn't call her a phony, but she does have a public face.<p>I'm terrified by the people who do not have a public face, the people that don't hide. They seem to never falter. That can look like strength but they are unable to adapt to different audiences and that is a weakness. When you see that they hide nothing it is very difficult to forgive the gaffes because ... well, they aren't really gaffes. It's just crazy all the way down.
Saying "be yourself" is a way to say "I'm suave enough to not have to think consciously about the persona I project". Likewise, "never settle" is a way to brag "I was good enough to not have to settle".<p><a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/10/never-settle-is-a-brag.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/10/never-settle-is-a-brag...</a>
Be yourself should just be properly understood as a contraction for "be the best version of yourself" which is basically the thesis statement of this entire article.
if i may...<p><a href="http://www.humoar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/greatest-weakness-honesty.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.humoar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/greatest-we...</a>
"Be yourself" is actually really good and really bad advice. It's bad because it's uninformative, but good because it's true. The challenge lies in knowing who you are. The way there is long and hard. It's reconciling what you want with what you like, for example.
I see two issues in the article. I don't think that "being yourself" is the same thing as speaking without a filter, and I don't think that it requires someone to think of themselves as an unchanging entity.<p>> It worked. Next time people say, “just be yourself,” stop them in their tracks. No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head.<p>That last line is the core of the issue that I see. To me, an important aspect of "being myself" is living my life in my head, rather than through my actions. Acting out on everything I'm thinking would be distinctly un-self-like for me. I suspect that I'm just missing the point that the author's trying to make.
How much you can "Be Yourself" of course varies greatly between cultures.<p>- Russians will see through unauthentic smiles with disdain.<p>- Brazilians don't do well with blank expressions or disagreement.<p>- The dutch on the other hand expect you to express your disagreements with no sugar coating - and might be disappointed if you hide your opinion.<p>I'm not very compatible with my own culture, and I expect to reap greater professional benefits by immigrating.
this article seems terribly concerned with some jargon about "high self monitoring". it seems to me like an insufficiently critical acceptance of the theory of personality and consciousness presented by that one particular psychology article.<p>this entire article and the underlying assumptions need to be taken with many grains of salt.
FYI: The linked article about Radical Honesty by A.J. Jacobs is hilarious.<p><a href="http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26792/honesty0707/" rel="nofollow">http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26792/honesty0707/</a>