How does one "be themselves?" Serious question, and

Dude jsut turn your brain off

>>1438727

Dude that's easy. No two amalgamations are alike. Everyone has internalized the people and world around them in different ways and drawn different conscious and unconscious conclusions from it. Even if your character is an amalgamation, it's a unique amalgamation. That's "yourself". Be true to that, mmkay?

>>1438735

But that isn't me? It's just different people.

You've finally discovered advice for teenagers is fucking stupid, congrats.

"Being yourself" just means "appear comfortable and charasmatic"

>>1438738

There's no way it means that.

File: pep.png (5KB, 610x514px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 610x514px

Fitting in comes naturally to neurotypicals so they erroneously assume it is the same for everyone else.

>>1438736
Yes it is.
Because it's impossible to not be yourself. What you are is not hidden: it's just your body, your thoughts and your actions.
If some of these look like other people's, it's just a resemblance and they are still yours.

>>1438751
That is entirely what it means in application.

>>1438727
experience personal trending grevious forms of physical injury and see how decompartmentalised real life feels then

>>1438870

what

>>1438727
You are not yourself

Yourself only exists in the neuro-chemistry of those you interact with. (((You))) only exist as the experience that change who (((They))) are. You are just the genetics of your parents combined with the experiences you have absorbed from interacting with others. And all the you's and all the they's are the descendants of the first thought. The first piece of information processed by the first neural network. Language is infinite. There are infinite ideas but finite words to express these ideas. We must continue to create new words to express previously unexpressed ideas. You are a word.

dude lmao, just assume you have a soul, therefore just b ur self

>>1440268

What word?

>>1440414
THE wyrd

maybe your wyrd has not been spoken yet

>>1438727
i read this recently, it said the voice in your head takes on a life of it's own as we get older. some identify with this voice, they believe the voice is their own when really it's just a combination of internal chatter, memories, and psychological rules that the brain taught itself so mommy would love you. the brain is constantly trying to obtain and cling to emotional security because as a child, you were powerless and naive, and love was the only thing between you and mommy and daddy neglecting you, leaving you at the mercy of the boogeyman, and leaving you at the doorstep of an orphanage.

my point is you are not your thoughts. they are literally a tool, like a sword, too often turned upon the self to induce fear. for example, "don't approach that pretty girl, she'll reject you, and that will hurt."

again, you are not your thoughts. it's literally like another person living inside your head. the most well off people have learned to live in coexistence with it. you don't have to listen to everything it says, no matter how right or wrong or good or bad it sounds. it's like an annoying friend you can't get rid of.

once you stop doing everything your mind suggests (and stop judging your past actions), you begin to do what's in your heart, and that is your true self.

>>1440554

Got dang it wizard speak plainly in words all of us can understand

>>1440709
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd

>>1438727
There's no such thing as 'being yourself' in a traditional sense. From the beginning of your life and forever onward you are pushed towards certain directions. Your taste in food is dictated by your parents, same with you accent. You're ignored chastised and hurt if you do something they don't like and made a pariah if you do something your friends don't
For the most part these effects are 'good' and instil a sense of belonging and responsibility but in the most literal sense they muddy the entire concept of an inherent self

The only sensible concept of self I can imagine is similar to the social circumflex. A concept of tendencies toward behaviour in certain situations. A sort of global feature that manifests across all contexts rather than being static state that is 'you'

Do you flourish well in a strict environment? If so how well relative to others? Do you flounder when thrust upon expectation? Do you only follow in teams where there is a good 'leader' or in all teams?

>>1440268
>so close to determinism
>fucked it up and went full /x/
What a pity. You are you because there is no other way you could be. From the moment of the universes conception there has never once been something that couldn't have been predicted. We're all billiard balls bouncing around after a break. If you know the math well enough you can predict everything that will happen off a particular shot the moment the cue leaves the cue ball.
Such is life.

>>1441360
I think Computer Science disagrees with you just a little bit

You're right about determinism but Comp. Sci. implies that there are probably a very very large number of possible Universes that could've formed post-Big Bang and this is just one of them

>>1438732
why would anyone want to be as dumb as you?

just b urlsf ahahha