Natasha Tori Maru

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.

Do we have one? Rolling. Post that shit. Shorts, reels, tick-tock turds. Do your worst short format. Boomer cringe. I love the spittle on the guys mouth 🤮🤢 https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS45V1Enf/

Definitely keep us updated with what you can - big pivot! But I dare say a good fit; you have always come across as passionate around the topic

Parasites? Shit. That's a serious contender for explanation - my sister had parasites and they causes her anxiety and panic attacks of all things (as well as other symptoms).

I checked up on him last week as a result of re-watching the Fake Spirituality vid Leo did (I see the Aubrey Marcus Polyamory thread from last year as sort of inspiration for that video, so it triggered the memory of him). I came to the same conclusion as you. He's very, very ungrounded at the moment - to say the least!

Excuse me, boys. Naughty. Naughty boys. Motherfucking TROUBLE TROUBLE TROUBLE ON THE INTERWEBS. See below markup in green. hErE cOmES tHe FuN POlIcE

@Jordan of the Shire I appreciate these insights. Making me think a lot! I find the concept of properly processing and feeling our emotions, and emotional dysregulation, a big topic that ties in with authenticity. I often hear people "acting on emotion" and claiming it is them "authentically expressing" themselves in the moment. Reacting and expressing without any form of block. But I see their "expressing" the emotion as an form of emotional violence (ie they are having their emotions AT a person, instead of expressing as is). For example: I become angry my colleague didn't do something, and I follow my impulse to be angry. But is this a true manifestation of the emotion or feeling? Is there some addition on top of the emotion, resulting in me having the emotion AT a person (ie blame, judgement, self righteousness)? Properly processed and regulated emotions means we FEEL them acutely - but we aren't so overtaken by them as to feel the need to act them out and express. There is space. I do not speak about repression or bypassing/avoidance. I speak about truly feeling the depth of all spectrums of emotion/feeling, and being able to hold space to respond and not immediately react. It is an interesting thought - Authenticity isn't necessarily acting out whatever state is currently dominant. It may be the capacity to remain in honest contact with your internal experience while allowing how that experience becomes expressed in the world. And that expression is no longer a violent one (directed at someone) when felt in full and authentically.

@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.

And it is usually only one half of the story. It isn't genuine as half the persons life (the shit parts) are completely omitted. It's a curated avatar. A simulacrum. I cannot connect.

Interesting. This contains a useful principal but if taken literally it is false. Yes, inputs strongly influence outputs. But it smuggles in some bullshit - you can put in the same effort and get radically different outputs. Could be because of luck, timing, socioeconomic circumstances, illness/disability, genetics (this is your main point), random shit, starting conditions etc Your "inputs" influence outcomes for sure, but they do not fully determine them. You wont necessarily get what you put into life, however, what you repeatedly put into life has the propensity to shape what you become and the opportunities that may arise... universe does not guarantee fairness.

I call this "dirty fuel". It can suffice for a while - but it is never as good on the system/engine as positive motivation. In some ways I think it can be a necessary part of growth to use dirty fuel prior to finding authentic clean sources from within.

This is not a certainty. There are myriad other avenues in life that result in power and agency. And those myriad other avenues bring about the possibility of not having the associated negative consequences that social media can smuggled in.

I raised the effect of "psychologically inferring" in dialogue earlier in this thread, actually: I am surprised an example played out directly in the same thread. Mechanistically trying to explain, infer or "psychoanalyse" a person's state in argument is a failure to relate to the person and just turns them against us. Which is exactly what happened here. When someone is related to, via questions around their meaning, experience and views they feel understood. And end up much more receptive to alternative views and theories. A possibility the assumption underneath (when there is some sort of negative inferred state) is that "this person doesn't agree with me, therefore there must be something defective in their state". I used to do this all the time in dialogue and it really soured my relationships.

https://metasinternalresearch.org/ Curated repository and analysis of Meta's leaked/disclosed internal research, not itself the primary research. But if anyone is interested. @Lyubov I am keen to hear back after sometime of having no access to Instagram. I found that, despite me thinking I was relaxing or unwinding, I was left feeling slightly empty, numb and seeking further stimulation. It really disrupted my wind down routines.

But how do you determine those constants and know them for sure?

Haha - HAL 😈

@LordFall KEEN

Attention is a trainable behavioural resource - so algorithmic short form media isn't just this innocent entertainment source - the environment is deliberately curated to provide you with novelty & emotional salience. It ends up a its own personalised reward stream. Meta deliberately removed natural stopping points and created an almost frictionless environment to leverage continued engagement - good or bad. For anyone curious you should look into the recent lawsuits from late 2026 + internal research Meta performed themselves. It is becoming harder and harder for them to pretend they were ignorant to potential harm. The lawsuits do not mean they are admitting liability or are guilty. Meta has argued they performed research to identify and mitigate problems (compulsive use and harm) from features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and notifications. They reject the interpretation from the recent 2026 litigation (still contested I believe) they knew about the harm that could be caused. I removed the apps from my phone - I occasionally browse on a terminal. It was one of the best things I did for wellbeing, happiness and attention.

Can't AI just do the dishes, fold the laundry and do the crap I don't want to, instead of do that crap I do want to do? I don't want AI to do the shit I often enjoy or find interesting. 😈

What did you eat?

To clarify - I am not objecting to the quality of your reasoning. You are correct that speculation isn't inherently illegitimate. I am objecting to the fact that you apparently presented an inference about OP's internal state with more certainty than the available evidence warrants. It remains that you speculated - "educated guess". This is unnecessary and weakens your argument because it's another speculation. There is zero evidence for this. ____ Obviously you don't have to take this on board, but attributing an internal psychological state to someone and then building a question around that inference sort of shoots you in the foot if you want to engage in charitable, good faith conversation. It is a failure to relate to the person and can polarise them against you (put them in the defensive). And if they reply with some charged emotional defence at being "psychoanalysed" (or state inference), it can be very easy to use the defensive posture as more evidence for your inference (closed loop, self sealing model). It is a huge caveat to approaching interactions without asking neutral, open ended questions prior to labelling someone as emotionally compromised/jealous/envious/feeling negative or what-have-you. I just wouldn't personally prematurely convert a psychological hypothesis into the premise of your interaction for the above reasons. I make this mistake very often myself, which might be why I saw it when you posted.

@LordFall you are speculating. You even gave evidence for your speculation. Do you know OP was triggered? No. Hence, speculation.

This is framed upon a purely speculation based psychoanalysis with very little basis of evidence based on what OP stated.

We were asked our opinion. Did you think I was giving dating advice? This was not the intention.

This is a broader topic that can also apply to many users issues with understanding women ❤️❤️❤️