I wanted to know what you guys all thought about this.  I've sorta been having a fight with my girlfriend recently, closely related to this, and I think it's still bugging me a little.

Do you guys think it's a good thing to force yourself to change your actions, against what you feel to be right, if you know they're wrong?  Assume, for this case, that the only one hurt by them is yourself (other people won't feel the consequeences either way).

Now, one of us thinks that if you act differently how you would noramlly, you will only curb the surface tendencies of your behavior.  In the end, you'll wear the mask for so long that you'll confuse it with your real self... so for a shallow gain for the better, you lose your authenticity and wear a mask your whole life.  The other thinks that instead of the mask becoming fused to you, your feelings really will follow suit, and the change will become a true change for the better.

So some questions: is it hypocritical to act against how you 'normally' would (if you didn't force yourself to act differently), or does the desire to act differently show that you've already changed at the core?  If your feelings eventually do follow suit, are you better off (that is, the change is a "real" change and you're now a better person for it), or worse off (that is, you've killed off your authenticity-demanding-conscience and have just added a layer of hypocrisy to yourself)?

Any ideas or thoughts?  Let's get that Fi churning!

I'm not convinced you're asking a clear question. Is the particular action, or the specific type of action in question right or wrong? If it is right, then ceteris paribus, you should do it, and if it is wrong, ceteris paribus, you should not do it. This may even be analytic, that is, it might follow from the very meaning of the terms being used.

It sounds like you might be asking something more specific, like -- should I alter who I am to appease the demands of other people? The answer to that question is no. If others like you, they like you, but if they don't like you, they'll like not liking you. But if you're a chameleon, no one will ever care. Chameleons are redundant and interchangeable. Note that this is a question about manners, and not a question about ethics. The only exception is the workplace, where we all prostitute ourselves by conforming to someone else's wishes in exchange for beautiful green cash.

This being said, authenticity is way overrated. Hypocrisy is usually a sign of an imperfect person trying to do the right thing. There really is no such thing as the Real Me outside what you do, so choose wisely. I'd recommend not actively pursuing authenticity, otherwise we'll just end up acting like jackasses for the sake of being different. Sincerity is much more important.

Posted By sbalbom on 12 Dec 2009 08:00 PM
I think a specific example would help here.

As do I.  If it weren't for the unreasonable demands of others, I'd just walk around in my underpants and a t-shirt everywhere.  I'd rather just put on a pair of pants than suffer the consequences of not being able to purchase goods, getting harrassed by police, etc.

ahh thanks.  I'm feeling a bit better now.  Well... as well as you can feel after eating a row of ritz crackers over the last 48 hours.

did I just get a hug from an INTJ?

Anyway, take it like... if someone were a drunkard, would be a good example.  Stopping drinking (or at least drinking in healthier ways, or whatever) would be much healthier for them than constantly pouring their money into alcohol and drinking themselves stupid every night.

But supposing the person only "knew it was a good idea" for them to stop drinking (other people told them so, or they otherwise somehow realized it would probably be good for them), but didn't really want to themselves.  Or maybe they did want to, but never could manage to shake the habit (which probably indicates that they really didn't want to, on some level, but yeah).  In some sense, they would (or would they?) be putting on at least a temporary layer of hypocrisy, while they both wanted to and did not want to be drinking.  Surely, the habit wouldn't die instantly, so there's some conflict of interests for a while, but the one that's much more "them" is the way they had acted previously, when they were constantly drunk.

Do you think they're being inauthentic during the time that they're forcing themselves to act against their inclinations, or does the fact that they're trying to change mean that either thing they did would be authentic?  And if you are being inauthentic, is it a good thing to grind through the temporary inauthenticity when you're pretty sure your feelings will grow to match up, in time?

I think I already answered my own question while writing this, but something about following things that you "should be doing", against what you "feel like doing"--forcing yourself to do the good actions before your heart is quite up at the same level--still makes me uneasy.

*shakes head* I didn't want to use the exact same situation because it felt like I was divulging more about the person I'm thinking of than I had a right to (even though that's kind of stupid, because you don't know them), but I specifically chose drinking because it had the same negative connotations. Or at least, they perceive it with the same connotations as most people would perceive drinking, so I thought it was actually the closest analogy I could come up with.

I didn't think alcohol carried a physical dependence, though. At least, I thought that was the rationale behind making hard drugs illegal, because they had a physical-addiction component to them... so I just sort of assumed that if alcohol were legal, then it didn't have the same physically addictive part. Of course it does have the mentally addictive part, but that goes for chocolate and other things too. If someone likes something a lot, they can grow addicted to it.

Fill it in with whatever situation you want, though. I did my best to match it to the real situation without feeling like I invaded someone's privacy. The relevant characteristics are 1. no physically addictive component, 2. there is a mentally addictive component, 3. the person perceives it as harmful as most people probably perceive an addiction to alcohol, and 4. it's been a habit running for ~30 years (starting at 4 years old, so basically lifelong). They suddenly decided to knock it off, but not so much because they want to, but only because they feel like they should and seem to have the strength to right now.

(apologies if I hurt your feelings, there, using alcohol as the analogous situation. Your post really struck me as something written by someone who was offended, more than anything else.  At the very least, I definitely didn't assume that knowledge that something is bad for you equates with the ability to stop it, because that's like the core lesson of my life--it just seemed like you were trying to jump on me for something asap...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome

Unlike most withdrawals from other drugs, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal. The withdrawal syndrome can include seizures and delirium tremens and may lead to excito-neurotoxicity.[1]

And no, I wasn't offended ^_^ I was in a hurry...typing between rounds of Left 4 Dead 2.

Ick, sorry. I'm not ignoring you guys, but I got really, really sick this morning, and ended up going to the hospital. I don't even really have the energy to think a lot or post anything substantial at the moment, so I'll give you an example sometime in the next few days, whenever I start feeling a little stronger.