1 00:00:06,240 --> 00:00:09,039 Speaker 1: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name 2 00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:11,799 Speaker 1: is Robert Lamb. Today is Saturday, so we venture into 3 00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:14,200 Speaker 1: the vault once more. We are going to be re 4 00:00:14,360 --> 00:00:17,400 Speaker 1: running our series on authenticity. This is going to be 5 00:00:17,480 --> 00:00:20,600 Speaker 1: Authenticity Part one. That's Part one of three and it 6 00:00:20,640 --> 00:00:25,000 Speaker 1: originally aired three nineteen twenty twenty four. Let's jump right in. 7 00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:32,080 Speaker 2: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio. 8 00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:39,640 Speaker 1: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. 9 00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:42,800 Speaker 3: My name is Robert Lamb, and I am Joe McCormick. 10 00:00:42,960 --> 00:00:45,839 Speaker 3: And today we're going to be kicking off a series 11 00:00:46,040 --> 00:00:49,760 Speaker 3: on a concept that I have been thinking about a 12 00:00:49,800 --> 00:00:54,440 Speaker 3: lot lately. That is the idea of authenticity. I've been 13 00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:56,680 Speaker 3: thinking about doing an episode on this sort of off 14 00:00:56,680 --> 00:01:01,600 Speaker 3: and on for I think several years now. Is really 15 00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:05,199 Speaker 3: interesting to me because it is one of those concepts 16 00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:08,880 Speaker 3: that is extremely important. It's highly relevant to our lives. 17 00:01:09,400 --> 00:01:11,960 Speaker 3: We probably think about it every single day, and at 18 00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,240 Speaker 3: the same time, it is sort of vaguely defined. We 19 00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:18,520 Speaker 3: don't often stop to think about what it really means, 20 00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:23,560 Speaker 3: or to analyze how we evaluated or what our criteria 21 00:01:23,760 --> 00:01:27,600 Speaker 3: of authenticity are and so forth. And I think that's 22 00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:31,560 Speaker 3: kind of a shame because our judgments about personal authenticity 23 00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:35,000 Speaker 3: play into all kinds of things, into how we relate 24 00:01:35,080 --> 00:01:39,959 Speaker 3: to friends, acquaintances, and co workers, whether we trust political candidates, 25 00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:43,800 Speaker 3: how we make business decisions, how we understand and evaluate 26 00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:47,360 Speaker 3: music and poetry and other works of art and entertainment. 27 00:01:47,600 --> 00:01:49,400 Speaker 3: It's threaded all through our lives. 28 00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:52,640 Speaker 1: It even comes down to basic decisions that you wouldn't 29 00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:55,440 Speaker 1: even think of as getting into the core of authenticity. 30 00:01:56,160 --> 00:01:58,680 Speaker 1: I think everybody has at least one I don't know, 31 00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:01,240 Speaker 1: T shirt or other kind of arnman in their wardrobe, 32 00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:04,320 Speaker 1: and you may find yourself wondering some days, is this 33 00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:06,600 Speaker 1: the day I wear this? Can I pull this off? 34 00:02:06,880 --> 00:02:10,680 Speaker 1: And and to some extent, you may be wondering about authenticity, 35 00:02:10,760 --> 00:02:13,840 Speaker 1: like and can I wear this and be authentic or 36 00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:16,360 Speaker 1: are people going to see through me and they're gonna 37 00:02:16,440 --> 00:02:20,840 Speaker 1: question whether I actually support that band, or whether whether 38 00:02:20,919 --> 00:02:23,600 Speaker 1: this is this is the appropriate color scheme for me? 39 00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:24,519 Speaker 1: And so forth? 40 00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:27,040 Speaker 3: Is this T shirt really me today? 41 00:02:27,520 --> 00:02:31,120 Speaker 1: Exactly? Yeah? And as we'll get into like that answer 42 00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:33,400 Speaker 1: may change day to day, Like you know, we're not 43 00:02:33,440 --> 00:02:35,560 Speaker 1: necessarily the same person day to day, and what is 44 00:02:35,600 --> 00:02:37,200 Speaker 1: authentic one day may not be authentic. 45 00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:39,960 Speaker 3: The next right before we started recording, I was thinking 46 00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:45,280 Speaker 3: about how authenticity is even often prescribed as a remedy 47 00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:49,200 Speaker 3: for when people are having difficulty with social relations or 48 00:02:49,280 --> 00:02:53,280 Speaker 3: social interactions, Like when somebody's like, I'm having trouble making 49 00:02:53,360 --> 00:02:56,000 Speaker 3: friends or I'm having trouble with dating. What am I 50 00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:59,160 Speaker 3: doing wrong? What's the first thing people usually say to them? 51 00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:03,400 Speaker 3: Just be yourself? That is advice there. Essentially that means 52 00:03:03,520 --> 00:03:04,880 Speaker 3: be authentic. 53 00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:07,360 Speaker 1: Though it's a paradox, right, because at the same time, 54 00:03:07,919 --> 00:03:12,359 Speaker 1: there's no other way to hijack your own authenticity than 55 00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:17,120 Speaker 1: by overthinking your authenticity. Yeah, or at least that can 56 00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:17,680 Speaker 1: be the case. 57 00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:22,400 Speaker 3: Yeah, So you know, we invoke this concept all the time. 58 00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:24,800 Speaker 3: We make judgments about it all the time. These judgments 59 00:03:24,800 --> 00:03:28,320 Speaker 3: are highly relevant to our lives, but often we'd be 60 00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:30,760 Speaker 3: I think if you press most people on what does 61 00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:32,880 Speaker 3: it really mean, they'd probably have to think about it 62 00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:34,760 Speaker 3: for a bit before they could come up with an answer. 63 00:03:35,280 --> 00:03:39,120 Speaker 3: So I'm interested in exploring this question. What is authenticity 64 00:03:39,160 --> 00:03:42,000 Speaker 3: and a person in a statement in a work of art. 65 00:03:42,720 --> 00:03:47,160 Speaker 3: It seems to have some overlap with honesty, but is 66 00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:50,600 Speaker 3: not the same thing as honesty. In fact, I think 67 00:03:50,640 --> 00:03:53,880 Speaker 3: quite famously. There are people in the real world and 68 00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:57,120 Speaker 3: like fictional characters you can think of who are known 69 00:03:57,440 --> 00:04:01,960 Speaker 3: not to be honest but are still wide considered authentic 70 00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:06,200 Speaker 3: in some way, like tricksters and liars and rascals who 71 00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:09,640 Speaker 3: are are not thought to be reliable truth tellers, yet 72 00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:14,280 Speaker 3: they're also not thought to be personally fake. You know 73 00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:17,760 Speaker 3: a lot of like lovable scoundrels in movies. Han Solo 74 00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:20,719 Speaker 3: is a character who like lies all the time, but 75 00:04:20,880 --> 00:04:23,440 Speaker 3: he is you would probably judge him as authentic. 76 00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:26,080 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, he's true to himself and that's one of 77 00:04:26,120 --> 00:04:27,480 Speaker 1: the things we admire about him, Like, you know, he 78 00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:28,040 Speaker 1: shoots from. 79 00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:30,080 Speaker 3: The hip, and well, we might have a hard time 80 00:04:30,080 --> 00:04:34,039 Speaker 3: coming up with a clear and all cases appropriate definition 81 00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:37,840 Speaker 3: of authenticity, we definitely know what it is in opposition 82 00:04:37,880 --> 00:04:41,200 Speaker 3: to its antonym, right. The opposite of an authentic person 83 00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:45,120 Speaker 3: is a person who is fake. I think we all 84 00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:48,039 Speaker 3: have this idea in our mind of a fake person 85 00:04:48,160 --> 00:04:50,159 Speaker 3: and we know them when we meet them. 86 00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:52,640 Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, but even this is this is the course 87 00:04:52,680 --> 00:04:55,040 Speaker 1: difficult to figure out as well, because there's so many 88 00:04:55,040 --> 00:05:00,120 Speaker 1: different versions of quote unquote fakeness in an individual, Like 89 00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:03,919 Speaker 1: what is the context is it like a social situation. 90 00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:08,400 Speaker 1: I think that tends to be a situation where a 91 00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:13,440 Speaker 1: lack of authenticity is considered more of a red flag, 92 00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:17,040 Speaker 1: as opposed to say, like a customer service environment, where 93 00:05:18,360 --> 00:05:20,520 Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of back and forth there 94 00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:22,479 Speaker 1: as well, and there is some nuance as well. You 95 00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:26,640 Speaker 1: can certainly come off two fake in a customer service situation, 96 00:05:26,760 --> 00:05:29,000 Speaker 1: but there is like a level of like I'm putting 97 00:05:29,040 --> 00:05:32,679 Speaker 1: on the public face, I'm not being one hundred percent 98 00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:35,640 Speaker 1: myself because I am also representing this company or whatever. 99 00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:38,359 Speaker 3: That's exactly right. Yeah, I mean, there's some jobs that 100 00:05:38,520 --> 00:05:41,680 Speaker 3: just require you to act a certain way regardless of 101 00:05:41,680 --> 00:05:42,760 Speaker 3: what you're feeling inside. 102 00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:45,960 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's also interesting to think about. Yeah, this whole 103 00:05:45,960 --> 00:05:48,880 Speaker 1: idea of like an authentic person versus a fake person, 104 00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:51,200 Speaker 1: like someone who lies all the time, Because if someone 105 00:05:51,279 --> 00:05:54,479 Speaker 1: lies all the time, then they tell the truth in 106 00:05:54,520 --> 00:05:56,480 Speaker 1: a manner of speaking. You know. It's kind of like 107 00:05:56,520 --> 00:05:59,880 Speaker 1: that old Night Knights and Knaves logic puzzle that was 108 00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:02,919 Speaker 1: that it is popularized by the two gates scene in 109 00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:07,839 Speaker 1: Jim Henson's Labyrinth, which Sarah ultimately solves via answer laundering. 110 00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:10,919 Speaker 3: Right, so one of the gatekeepers always tells the truth 111 00:06:10,960 --> 00:06:12,960 Speaker 3: and the other always lies, and with that you can 112 00:06:13,080 --> 00:06:14,800 Speaker 3: like solve the logic puzzle. 113 00:06:14,800 --> 00:06:17,520 Speaker 1: Right because since they're both absolute, so you can you 114 00:06:17,560 --> 00:06:21,040 Speaker 1: can compare their answers and eventually get yourself to the 115 00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:22,680 Speaker 1: absolute truth of the scenario. 116 00:06:23,080 --> 00:06:25,760 Speaker 3: So the dog at that gate that lies all the time, 117 00:06:25,839 --> 00:06:28,359 Speaker 3: you would probably not think of as a fake person 118 00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:31,560 Speaker 3: as someone who's inauthentic. The way one of the dogs 119 00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:34,120 Speaker 3: at the gates I think would actually be fake would 120 00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:37,840 Speaker 3: be if they like cultivated an outward facing persona as 121 00:06:37,880 --> 00:06:41,840 Speaker 3: a truth teller, but then secretly told lies sometimes, you know, 122 00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:44,360 Speaker 3: like if one of the dogs at the gates actually 123 00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:47,920 Speaker 3: broke their own rules about lying and telling the truth. 124 00:06:47,880 --> 00:06:49,960 Speaker 1: Right, because then they would be inconsistent, which is which 125 00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:52,880 Speaker 1: is ultimately I guess what we're getting at when it 126 00:06:52,880 --> 00:06:55,919 Speaker 1: comes to, like the fear of someone in a social 127 00:06:55,920 --> 00:06:59,640 Speaker 1: scenario being fake is that they will they will break 128 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:02,200 Speaker 1: a scene track record, like they'll you know, Oh, they 129 00:07:02,240 --> 00:07:04,360 Speaker 1: seemed like they were so authentic and they were my friend, 130 00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:08,160 Speaker 1: but then they weren't my friend, Whereas if they were, 131 00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:11,440 Speaker 1: if they hated you the whole time, but they perfectly 132 00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:15,440 Speaker 1: kept up the front of being your friend for say years, 133 00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:17,720 Speaker 1: or the course of your entire lifetime, then they're essentially 134 00:07:17,720 --> 00:07:20,480 Speaker 1: your friend, right, Yeah, like if the if the fake 135 00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:21,960 Speaker 1: is perfect, it becomes the truth. 136 00:07:22,320 --> 00:07:24,400 Speaker 3: That's a really good point, and I think I think 137 00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:28,400 Speaker 3: in reality, that would correspond with some philosophical ideas of 138 00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:32,000 Speaker 3: authenticity we'll get into in just a second. So for 139 00:07:32,160 --> 00:07:36,800 Speaker 3: a direct definition of authenticity in persons, and of course 140 00:07:37,000 --> 00:07:38,960 Speaker 3: you know that term gets applied to other types of 141 00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:41,080 Speaker 3: things as well, and we'll discuss that in a minute. 142 00:07:41,400 --> 00:07:44,800 Speaker 3: But in persons, I was looking. I was looking at 143 00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:48,440 Speaker 3: a paper by Erica R. Bailey and Aaron Levy that 144 00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:50,560 Speaker 3: I'm either going to discuss later in this episode or 145 00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:54,040 Speaker 3: probably possibly in part two of this series. But in 146 00:07:54,080 --> 00:07:57,239 Speaker 3: that paper, the authors define an authentic person as quote, 147 00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:02,080 Speaker 3: someone whose behavior is genuine and reflects their true inner 148 00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:06,520 Speaker 3: qualities and feelings. And I think this definition does get 149 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:09,880 Speaker 3: at a large part of what people mean with this word. Usually, 150 00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:14,520 Speaker 3: authenticity has something to do with your outward behavior accurately 151 00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:18,640 Speaker 3: reflecting your true inner feelings and your true inner character. 152 00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:23,280 Speaker 3: So in short, authenticity is when the outside matches the inside, 153 00:08:23,680 --> 00:08:26,840 Speaker 3: or when something is in fact what it seems to be, 154 00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:30,640 Speaker 3: or when someone is in fact who they claim to be. 155 00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:34,520 Speaker 3: But while that's I think pretty straightforward to understand, it 156 00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:37,040 Speaker 3: still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. 157 00:08:37,720 --> 00:08:40,920 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean for starters, of course, we can never 158 00:08:41,040 --> 00:08:45,959 Speaker 1: truly know somebody's actual inner reality, their actual inner thoughts, 159 00:08:46,000 --> 00:08:49,360 Speaker 1: So it's all just us doing a mental model of 160 00:08:49,400 --> 00:08:54,560 Speaker 1: what this person's inner thoughts and actual intentions are. And 161 00:08:54,600 --> 00:08:58,679 Speaker 1: then it's yeah, it doesn't necessarily bear close scrutiny, right 162 00:08:58,720 --> 00:09:01,440 Speaker 1: because along these lines, the person with no filters or 163 00:09:01,440 --> 00:09:05,040 Speaker 1: composure whatsoever is the utmost authentic person you could hope 164 00:09:05,040 --> 00:09:07,920 Speaker 1: to meet. And generally speaking, these are qualities you come 165 00:09:07,960 --> 00:09:10,720 Speaker 1: to expect from say a cat or a dog. But 166 00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:13,840 Speaker 1: a great deal of striving to be a mature human 167 00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:17,720 Speaker 1: is knowing or learning how to manage the inner self 168 00:09:17,840 --> 00:09:20,640 Speaker 1: and and outer expression. And as we grow up, there's 169 00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:22,880 Speaker 1: a great deal to learn and develop along these lines. 170 00:09:22,880 --> 00:09:25,679 Speaker 1: And then we continue to learn and develop along these lines. Ideally, 171 00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:27,680 Speaker 1: you know, it's kind of a it's a never ending 172 00:09:27,760 --> 00:09:30,439 Speaker 1: journey of trying to figure out how to do all 173 00:09:30,520 --> 00:09:34,120 Speaker 1: this stuff and how to find that balance between how 174 00:09:34,120 --> 00:09:37,280 Speaker 1: you are inside and how you appear outside to not 175 00:09:37,720 --> 00:09:40,200 Speaker 1: necessarily everyone at once, but you know different groups at 176 00:09:40,240 --> 00:09:42,040 Speaker 1: different times, how do you present yourself? 177 00:09:42,400 --> 00:09:44,400 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I think that's a great point. I mean, 178 00:09:44,440 --> 00:09:48,640 Speaker 3: we think we value authenticity as a desirable trait in 179 00:09:48,720 --> 00:09:51,000 Speaker 3: people to be friends with, people, to put our trust 180 00:09:51,040 --> 00:09:54,240 Speaker 3: in as leaders, and so forth. But in reality, a 181 00:09:54,280 --> 00:09:59,080 Speaker 3: person who authentically outwardly enacts every feeling they have and 182 00:09:59,120 --> 00:10:01,640 Speaker 3: every thought they have, we would usually view that person 183 00:10:01,679 --> 00:10:03,720 Speaker 3: as lacking in some kind of self control. 184 00:10:04,840 --> 00:10:05,360 Speaker 1: So I think. 185 00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:09,720 Speaker 3: There's a sort of contradiction there within our desires. But anyway, 186 00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:13,080 Speaker 3: so while this definition I just mentioned, like the is 187 00:10:13,160 --> 00:10:16,080 Speaker 3: what it seems to be or are who they claim 188 00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:19,400 Speaker 3: to be definition, I think does cover a lot of 189 00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:22,600 Speaker 3: the usage of authenticity in everyday life, especially when applied 190 00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:27,840 Speaker 3: to persons and to artifacts. Discussing authenticity is complicated by 191 00:10:27,840 --> 00:10:29,840 Speaker 3: the fact that this word is used to refer to 192 00:10:29,920 --> 00:10:33,680 Speaker 3: a lot of different ideas that are all somewhat related 193 00:10:34,040 --> 00:10:37,880 Speaker 3: but also somewhat different. So I think about a secondary 194 00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:42,439 Speaker 3: usage of authenticity when describing an activity or a product 195 00:10:42,520 --> 00:10:47,320 Speaker 3: that has like a known cultural history. Example that comes 196 00:10:47,360 --> 00:10:51,960 Speaker 3: to my mind is making a recipe for spaghetti carbonara. 197 00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:54,640 Speaker 3: According to a lot of people, there will be an 198 00:10:54,720 --> 00:10:57,920 Speaker 3: authentic way to make this dish, you got to use 199 00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:01,880 Speaker 3: eggs but not cream, et cetera. And there are many 200 00:11:02,080 --> 00:11:07,000 Speaker 3: inauthentic ways to make spaghetti carbonara, and to some people 201 00:11:07,160 --> 00:11:10,920 Speaker 3: there is something actually shameful or bad about making it 202 00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:15,320 Speaker 3: in one of the allegedly inauthentic ways. And the same 203 00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:20,559 Speaker 3: category of cultural authenticity or inauthenticity, I think I really 204 00:11:20,600 --> 00:11:22,680 Speaker 3: often see it applied to food, but I think it 205 00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:26,600 Speaker 3: also gets applied to things like clothing, dances, crafts, and 206 00:11:26,679 --> 00:11:31,680 Speaker 3: other art forms. And so this understanding of authenticity has 207 00:11:32,080 --> 00:11:35,480 Speaker 3: some overlap with the is what it claims to be definition, 208 00:11:35,559 --> 00:11:38,359 Speaker 3: but it also seems to rope in some other things, 209 00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:40,599 Speaker 3: like it relies on additional assumptions. 210 00:11:41,200 --> 00:11:44,120 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting. The culinary example is really interesting to 211 00:11:44,160 --> 00:11:47,040 Speaker 1: ponder because the reality, of course, is that many examples 212 00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:51,560 Speaker 1: of the authentic in culinary tradition, these were at some 213 00:11:51,640 --> 00:11:54,560 Speaker 1: point the inauthentic new approach, you know, making use of 214 00:11:54,600 --> 00:11:58,240 Speaker 1: say new ingredients. That there are a number of dishes 215 00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:00,920 Speaker 1: you can find throughout global cuisines that you think of 216 00:12:00,960 --> 00:12:04,679 Speaker 1: it as a particular form, but you're incorporating ingredients that 217 00:12:04,720 --> 00:12:08,440 Speaker 1: were brought in from some other location and just became 218 00:12:08,960 --> 00:12:11,000 Speaker 1: associated with that particular dish. 219 00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:13,680 Speaker 3: That's right. So, I think the idea of authenticity in 220 00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:17,400 Speaker 3: these sort of like cultural performances or you know, making 221 00:12:17,440 --> 00:12:21,120 Speaker 3: a recipe or something, what it suggests is you're doing 222 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:25,960 Speaker 3: it the way it's always been done. But in basically 223 00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:28,880 Speaker 3: no case has it ever actually always been done any 224 00:12:28,880 --> 00:12:29,680 Speaker 3: particular way. 225 00:12:30,160 --> 00:12:33,280 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, so, and maybe being a little pedantic there, 226 00:12:33,320 --> 00:12:35,720 Speaker 1: but the point, because the point still holds that when 227 00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:39,360 Speaker 1: we're talking about an authentic culinary experience, we mean that 228 00:12:39,400 --> 00:12:42,200 Speaker 1: it's firmly rooted in the tradition, and not a tradition 229 00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:44,560 Speaker 1: that's existed since the beginning of time, but has maybe 230 00:12:44,559 --> 00:12:49,080 Speaker 1: existed for centuries, maybe decades, maybe just a few years. 231 00:12:50,160 --> 00:12:52,840 Speaker 1: And it also is probably rooted in a particular culture. 232 00:12:53,400 --> 00:12:58,400 Speaker 1: But again the paradox is that authenticity is rarely truly 233 00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:01,240 Speaker 1: set in stone. It just may have the feeling of such. 234 00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:03,560 Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's right. And while we are sort 235 00:13:03,559 --> 00:13:07,319 Speaker 3: of questioning the idea of these various ideas of authenticity 236 00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:09,600 Speaker 3: and how much truth there is to them, really, at 237 00:13:09,640 --> 00:13:11,640 Speaker 3: the same time, like I feel it, like, you know, 238 00:13:11,640 --> 00:13:16,440 Speaker 3: if I see somebody like making spaghetti carbonaro with you know, 239 00:13:16,600 --> 00:13:19,600 Speaker 3: just like heavy cream and American cheese and mixing it 240 00:13:19,640 --> 00:13:22,240 Speaker 3: together with bacon. It's not like I think they're doing 241 00:13:22,280 --> 00:13:26,280 Speaker 3: something morally wrong, but I do recognize there's some kind 242 00:13:26,280 --> 00:13:29,520 Speaker 3: of gap there. There is like a difference between what 243 00:13:29,559 --> 00:13:33,840 Speaker 3: they're doing and what a person might understand them to 244 00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:36,320 Speaker 3: claim to be doing. If that makes any sense. Maybe 245 00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:38,840 Speaker 3: it's too many orders removed, But do you understand what 246 00:13:38,880 --> 00:13:39,280 Speaker 3: I'm saying? 247 00:13:39,679 --> 00:13:44,080 Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, though, yeah, yeah. Like I say, it's hard 248 00:13:44,080 --> 00:13:46,960 Speaker 1: to really figure out where to land on this, because 249 00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:50,800 Speaker 1: I was thinking about classic cocktails as an example of this. 250 00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:54,439 Speaker 1: You know, in many cases these are not terribly old, 251 00:13:55,760 --> 00:14:01,560 Speaker 1: but people do get very possessive of original recipes and 252 00:14:01,600 --> 00:14:05,199 Speaker 1: so forth. Thick the mytie, for example, which we did 253 00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:09,720 Speaker 1: a whole episode of Invention on years back. We interviewed 254 00:14:10,200 --> 00:14:13,320 Speaker 1: Jeff Beach Bumbarry about the origins of the my tie 255 00:14:13,400 --> 00:14:15,719 Speaker 1: is a pretty fun shat, but yeah, my tie is 256 00:14:16,200 --> 00:14:20,280 Speaker 1: a classic tropical drink that merely dates back to nineteen 257 00:14:20,360 --> 00:14:23,680 Speaker 1: forty four. And when we talk about an authentic my ti, 258 00:14:23,800 --> 00:14:28,080 Speaker 1: we're generally talking about this nineteen forty four Trader Vic recipe. 259 00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:31,000 Speaker 1: And in this particular case, you might ask, well, does 260 00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:35,360 Speaker 1: inauthentic equal bad? Well, oftentimes. Yes, there are plenty of 261 00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:39,200 Speaker 1: bad my ties out there that are inauthentic, but there 262 00:14:39,200 --> 00:14:42,960 Speaker 1: are also noted historic variations of the mytie that are 263 00:14:42,960 --> 00:14:47,560 Speaker 1: not bad drinks, And there are various contemporary spins on 264 00:14:47,640 --> 00:14:50,480 Speaker 1: the cocktail that range from good to great. So, in 265 00:14:50,520 --> 00:14:55,440 Speaker 1: a weird sense, something can at once be authentic and inauthentic. 266 00:14:55,520 --> 00:14:57,400 Speaker 1: You can have a great spin on the mytie that 267 00:14:57,560 --> 00:15:01,320 Speaker 1: is inauthentic when compared to the original rest, but can 268 00:15:01,400 --> 00:15:05,480 Speaker 1: still be an authentic product of a particular mixologists or 269 00:15:05,520 --> 00:15:16,040 Speaker 1: bartender's skill in creativity. 270 00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:19,680 Speaker 3: I think that's a great point, and I think, yeah, 271 00:15:19,680 --> 00:15:21,880 Speaker 3: what you're getting at there with like, there's another type 272 00:15:21,920 --> 00:15:26,000 Speaker 3: of authenticity that can be achieved even if the recipe 273 00:15:26,040 --> 00:15:28,640 Speaker 3: is not the same as what it originally was. But 274 00:15:28,800 --> 00:15:33,800 Speaker 3: you're saying an authenticity emerges out of a another mixologist's 275 00:15:33,920 --> 00:15:38,840 Speaker 3: creativity and skill in putting something together, And that taps 276 00:15:38,880 --> 00:15:42,200 Speaker 3: into this whole other nebula of meanings that people today 277 00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:45,640 Speaker 3: attached to the word authenticity, which has something to do 278 00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:49,480 Speaker 3: with like it is related to outward behavior, but is 279 00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:54,080 Speaker 3: not necessarily about that matching your matching your inner character, 280 00:15:54,400 --> 00:15:57,720 Speaker 3: matching your inner feelings. It's more about like behavior that 281 00:15:57,960 --> 00:16:01,960 Speaker 3: is an achievement of your great potential or like living 282 00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:03,840 Speaker 3: your best life. Does that make sense? 283 00:16:04,080 --> 00:16:04,360 Speaker 1: Yeah? 284 00:16:04,480 --> 00:16:07,360 Speaker 3: Yeah, there is a way people talk about being an 285 00:16:07,440 --> 00:16:10,640 Speaker 3: authentic existence, being one in which you do your best. 286 00:16:10,720 --> 00:16:13,640 Speaker 3: You're like become the best version of yourself that you 287 00:16:13,680 --> 00:16:15,600 Speaker 3: can be and do the best you can do. 288 00:16:16,160 --> 00:16:17,840 Speaker 1: Like it kind of a spin on that and just 289 00:16:17,920 --> 00:16:21,200 Speaker 1: our lingos. Occasionally go hear someone refer to as say 290 00:16:21,200 --> 00:16:23,560 Speaker 1: a particular director or creator, and they'll be like, Oh, 291 00:16:23,600 --> 00:16:27,480 Speaker 1: this individual, they're the real deal. Or this movie, this song, 292 00:16:27,640 --> 00:16:30,440 Speaker 1: this is the real deal. You know. It's kind of 293 00:16:30,440 --> 00:16:34,000 Speaker 1: you know, it doesn't necessarily connect to anything in particular, 294 00:16:34,040 --> 00:16:36,200 Speaker 1: but it does kind of at least imply that, like 295 00:16:36,320 --> 00:16:39,840 Speaker 1: this is authentic. This is a work of someone's labor 296 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:43,200 Speaker 1: and love and passion, Like someone put in the work here. 297 00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:46,800 Speaker 3: Another phrase that expresses this idea is the idea of 298 00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:50,160 Speaker 3: someone coming into themselves as an artist, or as a leader, 299 00:16:50,320 --> 00:16:53,600 Speaker 3: or as whatever, Like they are becoming the real version 300 00:16:53,600 --> 00:16:55,200 Speaker 3: of themselves by doing something great. 301 00:16:55,600 --> 00:17:01,600 Speaker 1: Yeah, Like what does that mean? Like they fulfilled the prophecy. 302 00:17:01,120 --> 00:17:06,080 Speaker 3: Achieve their terrible purpose. Yeah. So yet another definition of 303 00:17:06,119 --> 00:17:08,840 Speaker 3: authenticity that has been very important is one that is 304 00:17:09,000 --> 00:17:14,600 Speaker 3: particular to existentialist philosophy, in which I don't claim to 305 00:17:14,600 --> 00:17:17,280 Speaker 3: be an expert on existentialist philosophy, So I hope I'm 306 00:17:17,320 --> 00:17:20,840 Speaker 3: summarizing it well enough here. But the way I understand 307 00:17:20,840 --> 00:17:24,679 Speaker 3: it is that these branch in this branch of philosophy, 308 00:17:24,720 --> 00:17:31,080 Speaker 3: authenticity has this specialized meaning where an authentic existence is 309 00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:36,400 Speaker 3: basically living without illusions, accepting the extent to which you 310 00:17:36,480 --> 00:17:40,359 Speaker 3: are free to control your actions, and accepting that you 311 00:17:40,440 --> 00:17:44,280 Speaker 3: are thus defined by your actions. And so I think 312 00:17:44,320 --> 00:17:48,639 Speaker 3: a big emphasis of the existentialist understanding of authenticity is 313 00:17:48,840 --> 00:17:52,600 Speaker 3: accepting that you are what you choose to do, and 314 00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:56,520 Speaker 3: there's not like a separate secret you. That's the real 315 00:17:56,680 --> 00:17:59,199 Speaker 3: you that is different than what you do. What you 316 00:17:59,320 --> 00:18:02,399 Speaker 3: do is what you are, And in order to be authentic, 317 00:18:02,480 --> 00:18:04,960 Speaker 3: you have to accept that what you do is what 318 00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:05,360 Speaker 3: you are. 319 00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:09,000 Speaker 1: Okay, So it's not you are not who you are, 320 00:18:09,040 --> 00:18:11,159 Speaker 1: not what you would like to do. You are not 321 00:18:11,280 --> 00:18:14,240 Speaker 1: what you are thinking about doing. You are not what 322 00:18:14,320 --> 00:18:17,720 Speaker 1: you regret not doing. You are what you actually do. 323 00:18:17,920 --> 00:18:20,000 Speaker 1: What you actually choose to do is who you are. 324 00:18:20,160 --> 00:18:23,520 Speaker 3: That's the way I understand it, Okay, Fans of existentialism, 325 00:18:23,560 --> 00:18:26,840 Speaker 3: complain at us an email if you think I'm wrong. 326 00:18:27,440 --> 00:18:28,080 Speaker 1: If you choose to. 327 00:18:29,560 --> 00:18:32,359 Speaker 3: Yeah, And then of course there are even more ideas 328 00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:34,840 Speaker 3: of authenticity that we can continue to explore in the 329 00:18:34,840 --> 00:18:37,399 Speaker 3: rest of this series. But even coming back to the 330 00:18:37,400 --> 00:18:41,040 Speaker 3: baseline of the is what it seems to be or 331 00:18:41,119 --> 00:18:44,719 Speaker 3: the you are who you claim to be definition, there 332 00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:47,119 Speaker 3: are still a bunch of questions that we can be 333 00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:50,199 Speaker 3: left to wonder about, like why do we place so 334 00:18:50,440 --> 00:18:55,800 Speaker 3: much value on authenticity? And why is authenticity especially important 335 00:18:55,880 --> 00:18:59,639 Speaker 3: in some domains of life? What are the criteria of 336 00:18:59,680 --> 00:19:03,280 Speaker 3: authoricity in a person or in a personal expression. What 337 00:19:03,440 --> 00:19:06,200 Speaker 3: outward signs are we actually looking for when we make 338 00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:10,440 Speaker 3: judgments about it? Are we good at making those judgments accurately? 339 00:19:10,480 --> 00:19:11,800 Speaker 3: I think we're going to look at a paper on 340 00:19:11,840 --> 00:19:14,080 Speaker 3: that in just a minute. And also, if we go 341 00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:18,480 Speaker 3: with the definition above, do we truly value authentic behavior 342 00:19:18,640 --> 00:19:20,000 Speaker 3: as much as we think we do? 343 00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:22,120 Speaker 1: All right, let's dive into it. 344 00:19:22,480 --> 00:19:26,640 Speaker 3: Well, so we're probably going to address authenticity from the 345 00:19:26,680 --> 00:19:29,639 Speaker 3: angle of psychology research in a number of different ways 346 00:19:29,640 --> 00:19:31,920 Speaker 3: in the series, but I wanted to start off by 347 00:19:32,000 --> 00:19:34,800 Speaker 3: discussing a paper that was one of the first things 348 00:19:34,800 --> 00:19:37,800 Speaker 3: that really interested me when I started researching this topic. 349 00:19:38,400 --> 00:19:40,919 Speaker 3: This is the paper I mentioned earlier by Erica R. 350 00:19:41,000 --> 00:19:45,400 Speaker 3: Bailey and Aaron Levy, published in the journal Psychological Science 351 00:19:45,520 --> 00:19:48,160 Speaker 3: in twenty twenty two, and the title of the paper 352 00:19:48,280 --> 00:19:52,560 Speaker 3: is are you for real? Perceptions of authenticity are systematically 353 00:19:52,680 --> 00:19:56,119 Speaker 3: biased and not accurate. That'll give away the conclusions, but 354 00:19:56,160 --> 00:19:59,280 Speaker 3: I think there's some interesting stuff to learn along the way. 355 00:20:00,560 --> 00:20:02,600 Speaker 3: So at the time this paper was published, the authors 356 00:20:02,600 --> 00:20:06,560 Speaker 3: were affiliated with Columbia University. I think since then Bailey 357 00:20:06,600 --> 00:20:10,520 Speaker 3: has taken a position at Berkeley. But this paper begins 358 00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:14,760 Speaker 3: by asking a simple question, how good are we at 359 00:20:14,800 --> 00:20:18,879 Speaker 3: making accurate judgments about who is authentic and who is not. 360 00:20:20,320 --> 00:20:23,720 Speaker 3: This paper, again is the source of the phrasing of 361 00:20:23,760 --> 00:20:27,639 Speaker 3: the definition I mentioned earlier that quote. Theoretically, a person 362 00:20:27,760 --> 00:20:31,280 Speaker 3: is authentic when their behavior is genuine. That is, their 363 00:20:31,320 --> 00:20:35,959 Speaker 3: behavior reflects their true inner qualities and feelings. So if 364 00:20:36,000 --> 00:20:39,200 Speaker 3: the way they behave outwardly reflects who they really are 365 00:20:39,560 --> 00:20:43,840 Speaker 3: and how they really feel, and most of us behave 366 00:20:44,040 --> 00:20:47,240 Speaker 3: as if we think we're good at making these judgments 367 00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:50,200 Speaker 3: about others. You know, we do this all the time. 368 00:20:50,280 --> 00:20:53,480 Speaker 3: You talk to somebody for five minutes, and after you 369 00:20:53,560 --> 00:20:55,679 Speaker 3: walk away from them, you are pretty much ready to 370 00:20:55,720 --> 00:20:59,320 Speaker 3: say Jimmy was so earnest and sincere I really like him, 371 00:20:59,800 --> 00:21:02,679 Speaker 3: or Jimmy was so fake I couldn't stand that guy. 372 00:21:02,720 --> 00:21:06,439 Speaker 3: It's almost embarrassing to look back on how quickly we 373 00:21:06,480 --> 00:21:08,600 Speaker 3: think we can make these judgments about people. 374 00:21:09,119 --> 00:21:11,920 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, of course it makes sense given why 375 00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:15,680 Speaker 1: these this capacity for judging exists. I mean it comes 376 00:21:15,680 --> 00:21:20,120 Speaker 1: down to basic survival scenarios in which it maybe doesn't 377 00:21:20,160 --> 00:21:22,399 Speaker 1: pay to have an open mind, you know, coming back 378 00:21:22,440 --> 00:21:26,240 Speaker 1: to the you know, the very worn out example of 379 00:21:26,400 --> 00:21:30,280 Speaker 1: is there a tiger in the in the weeds there? 380 00:21:30,760 --> 00:21:33,320 Speaker 1: Or is there not a tiger? Well, you know, sometimes 381 00:21:34,280 --> 00:21:36,800 Speaker 1: you can't keep an open mind about the scenario. You 382 00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:38,879 Speaker 1: have to make a judgment call and then make your 383 00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:43,920 Speaker 1: survival choices accordingly. And you know that it holds true 384 00:21:43,920 --> 00:21:46,399 Speaker 1: in life and death situations, but then it ends up 385 00:21:46,440 --> 00:21:49,480 Speaker 1: applying to these various social contexts that are not life 386 00:21:49,520 --> 00:21:49,880 Speaker 1: and death. 387 00:21:50,200 --> 00:21:53,000 Speaker 3: That's right. So you could look at it on one hand, 388 00:21:53,000 --> 00:21:56,880 Speaker 3: as there's a survival incentive for us to be suspicious 389 00:21:56,920 --> 00:21:59,360 Speaker 3: and to not give out trust too easily. You could 390 00:21:59,359 --> 00:22:01,200 Speaker 3: also look at it from the other hand and say, 391 00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:04,439 Speaker 3: maybe there are some scenarios where there is incentive to 392 00:22:04,520 --> 00:22:07,960 Speaker 3: trust more easily, maybe than we should because like, I 393 00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:10,280 Speaker 3: don't know trusting, like you don't want to be hung 394 00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:14,440 Speaker 3: up being suspicious of people preventing you from cooperating to survive. 395 00:22:14,800 --> 00:22:18,960 Speaker 1: Right, right, And ultimately, like inaction on any given scenario 396 00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:22,560 Speaker 1: is in action, Like nothing is getting accomplished exactly. 397 00:22:23,080 --> 00:22:25,359 Speaker 3: So in the background section of their paper, the authors 398 00:22:25,480 --> 00:22:30,960 Speaker 3: talk about they review previous research confirming that we really 399 00:22:31,000 --> 00:22:34,000 Speaker 3: do make these judgments about authenticity, and we base a 400 00:22:34,040 --> 00:22:37,520 Speaker 3: lot on them, Like people who are perceived as authentic 401 00:22:37,560 --> 00:22:41,480 Speaker 3: have been found to be more well liked, more easily trusted, 402 00:22:41,960 --> 00:22:46,240 Speaker 3: and authenticity is apparently considered especially important when people select 403 00:22:46,400 --> 00:22:49,000 Speaker 3: leaders If you're going to look to someone for leadership 404 00:22:49,080 --> 00:22:52,919 Speaker 3: for some reason, people want somebody who is authentic, somebody 405 00:22:52,960 --> 00:22:57,200 Speaker 3: who that where they think the outside matches the inside. Now, Rob, 406 00:22:57,240 --> 00:23:00,959 Speaker 3: you brought this up earlier, but when you think about it, 407 00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:04,520 Speaker 3: it really would be kind of difficult to make a 408 00:23:04,680 --> 00:23:09,960 Speaker 3: judgment about another person's authenticity, especially after just a limited 409 00:23:10,080 --> 00:23:13,679 Speaker 3: time amount of time knowing someone, Because to really judge 410 00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:17,359 Speaker 3: somebody's authenticity by this main definition, we're talking about you 411 00:23:17,400 --> 00:23:22,159 Speaker 3: would have to both know someone's true inner self questionable 412 00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:27,240 Speaker 3: whether that's even a definable concept, and then also observe 413 00:23:27,320 --> 00:23:32,560 Speaker 3: their behavior carefully enough to accurately evaluate how well it 414 00:23:32,720 --> 00:23:36,560 Speaker 3: matches their inner self, and both of those are non trivial. 415 00:23:37,440 --> 00:23:41,919 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's interesting because, you know, especially when you 416 00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:44,640 Speaker 1: consider that a lot of the time when we're making 417 00:23:44,640 --> 00:23:47,600 Speaker 1: these knee jerk judgment calls, they're very simplistic. Right when 418 00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:50,719 Speaker 1: we think we are understanding a person's inner self, we're like, oh, 419 00:23:50,880 --> 00:23:53,720 Speaker 1: they seem nice on the outside, but inside a slippery snake, 420 00:23:54,119 --> 00:23:57,520 Speaker 1: you know, And in all likelihood it's they're not just 421 00:23:57,600 --> 00:24:01,000 Speaker 1: complete evil on the inside. There. There's a fair amount 422 00:24:01,040 --> 00:24:04,080 Speaker 1: of complexity there. There are reasons why they, you know, 423 00:24:04,240 --> 00:24:06,720 Speaker 1: might be behaving this way or the other and so forth. 424 00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:13,080 Speaker 1: You know, it's most people's inner self that we that 425 00:24:13,160 --> 00:24:15,399 Speaker 1: we cannot see again, to be clear, is going to 426 00:24:15,440 --> 00:24:18,800 Speaker 1: be rather complex with a lot of different moving parts there. 427 00:24:18,760 --> 00:24:21,040 Speaker 3: Absolutely right, And you know, I think a lot of 428 00:24:21,080 --> 00:24:25,480 Speaker 3: the inauthenticity that we encounter day to day is situational 429 00:24:25,520 --> 00:24:28,840 Speaker 3: and based on temporary roles rather than based on people's 430 00:24:28,960 --> 00:24:33,199 Speaker 3: like permanent personality traits. For example, probably one of the 431 00:24:33,240 --> 00:24:37,200 Speaker 3: most common ways you encounter clear inauthenticity is when a 432 00:24:37,240 --> 00:24:40,960 Speaker 3: salesperson is being really nice to you. You know, does 433 00:24:41,040 --> 00:24:44,040 Speaker 3: this salesperson really love me? Or do they really want 434 00:24:44,040 --> 00:24:47,000 Speaker 3: me to buy something from them? I mean, everybody knows 435 00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:49,040 Speaker 3: what's going on there, but it's based on like a 436 00:24:49,119 --> 00:24:52,880 Speaker 3: situation and a role more so than like that person's 437 00:24:52,920 --> 00:24:56,320 Speaker 3: inherent personality that they're just always a fake snake. 438 00:24:56,560 --> 00:25:00,280 Speaker 1: Right, Like it's yeah, just as it's it's problem. It's 439 00:25:00,320 --> 00:25:02,360 Speaker 1: probably not the case that they're a fake snake that's 440 00:25:02,400 --> 00:25:04,440 Speaker 1: just one hundred percent pretending to like you and be 441 00:25:04,920 --> 00:25:08,280 Speaker 1: cool about everything. It's like the opposite is also unlikely 442 00:25:08,720 --> 00:25:11,840 Speaker 1: that this is one hundred percent the real person here, 443 00:25:12,040 --> 00:25:15,160 Speaker 1: that they are really this into the product. It's probably 444 00:25:15,200 --> 00:25:17,240 Speaker 1: a balance, like maybe they are really into the product, 445 00:25:17,400 --> 00:25:19,440 Speaker 1: but maybe they also have had a very long day 446 00:25:19,520 --> 00:25:22,359 Speaker 1: and they are having to sort of act a little 447 00:25:22,400 --> 00:25:25,600 Speaker 1: bit to get through this encounter, you know, And it's 448 00:25:25,600 --> 00:25:28,680 Speaker 1: not necessarily a reflection on you, the customer exactly. 449 00:25:28,760 --> 00:25:28,840 Speaker 2: So. 450 00:25:29,080 --> 00:25:31,960 Speaker 3: The authors of this paper suggest that in lots of cases, 451 00:25:32,560 --> 00:25:35,680 Speaker 3: making judgments about the authenticity of others is what they 452 00:25:35,720 --> 00:25:39,880 Speaker 3: call quote a prohibitively difficult social judgment to make, so 453 00:25:40,040 --> 00:25:43,600 Speaker 3: their hypothesis is that we are not actually as great 454 00:25:43,600 --> 00:25:47,160 Speaker 3: as we think we are at assessing Jimmy's authenticity after 455 00:25:47,320 --> 00:25:49,160 Speaker 3: you know, talking to him for five minutes, or maybe 456 00:25:49,200 --> 00:25:52,439 Speaker 3: even after working with him on a project for six weeks. 457 00:25:52,480 --> 00:25:55,560 Speaker 3: As we will see in some of these upcoming experiments, 458 00:25:56,000 --> 00:26:00,719 Speaker 3: our authenticity judgments of others they hypothesize will exhibit a 459 00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:05,480 Speaker 3: range of distorting biases, most of which will be related 460 00:26:05,560 --> 00:26:09,399 Speaker 3: to the personality of the rater rather than the person 461 00:26:09,920 --> 00:26:13,359 Speaker 3: being rated on a scale of authenticity. In other words, 462 00:26:13,440 --> 00:26:16,919 Speaker 3: authenticity is largely in the eye of the beholder. So 463 00:26:16,960 --> 00:26:20,639 Speaker 3: this paper includes three different experimental studies. The first study 464 00:26:20,760 --> 00:26:23,359 Speaker 3: is just a survey on the Internet of lay people 465 00:26:23,720 --> 00:26:26,520 Speaker 3: to try to establish two things that were assumed, but 466 00:26:26,560 --> 00:26:29,840 Speaker 3: they wanted to confirm them experimentally. Number one is people 467 00:26:29,960 --> 00:26:32,760 Speaker 3: do believe they can tell who is authentic and who 468 00:26:32,800 --> 00:26:36,600 Speaker 3: is not. And number two is people think that authenticity 469 00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:39,760 Speaker 3: is a very important trait in others it matters a lot, 470 00:26:40,080 --> 00:26:42,479 Speaker 3: and their surveys did indeed conclude that that is what 471 00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:55,439 Speaker 3: people think. The second study, this was a series of 472 00:26:55,480 --> 00:26:58,640 Speaker 3: surveys to test how good we are at judging authenticity 473 00:26:59,240 --> 00:27:03,160 Speaker 3: the authenticity of others. Now you can imagine the methodological 474 00:27:03,160 --> 00:27:08,240 Speaker 3: problems presented here. How do you objectively characterize a person's 475 00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:11,760 Speaker 3: true inner self and feelings and how do you measure 476 00:27:11,840 --> 00:27:15,679 Speaker 3: the extent to which their external actions reflect that inner self? 477 00:27:16,119 --> 00:27:18,320 Speaker 3: You can't really do that, that's not possible. But the 478 00:27:18,359 --> 00:27:20,399 Speaker 3: authors come up with, I think, what I think is 479 00:27:20,440 --> 00:27:23,280 Speaker 3: a very clever proxy to look at. So what they 480 00:27:23,320 --> 00:27:28,639 Speaker 3: do is they compare other assessments to self assessments. So 481 00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:31,520 Speaker 3: how does that work? So the test subjects in this 482 00:27:31,880 --> 00:27:36,200 Speaker 3: study this part of the paper were incoming MBA students 483 00:27:36,200 --> 00:27:39,560 Speaker 3: who were randomly assigned to classroom work groups of four 484 00:27:39,560 --> 00:27:43,040 Speaker 3: to six students each, and these participants would work together 485 00:27:43,080 --> 00:27:48,040 Speaker 3: continuously throughout the semester of this school year and would 486 00:27:48,119 --> 00:27:51,639 Speaker 3: complete a number of surveys over the course of six 487 00:27:51,680 --> 00:27:56,520 Speaker 3: weeks at different time intervals, including surveys about themselves, answering 488 00:27:56,600 --> 00:28:01,520 Speaker 3: questions about their own authenticity and personality, and a multiple 489 00:28:01,520 --> 00:28:06,359 Speaker 3: time points rating the authenticity and personality of other members 490 00:28:06,440 --> 00:28:08,639 Speaker 3: of their group, people they had been working with, but 491 00:28:08,680 --> 00:28:11,359 Speaker 3: also people who they didn't know before. So they're randomly 492 00:28:11,400 --> 00:28:13,119 Speaker 3: assigned in these groups and they would get to know 493 00:28:13,200 --> 00:28:15,760 Speaker 3: them over the course of the study, and so I 494 00:28:15,800 --> 00:28:17,760 Speaker 3: think this method makes a lot of sense. It would 495 00:28:17,800 --> 00:28:21,000 Speaker 3: be hard, maybe even impossible, to test and quantify a 496 00:28:21,040 --> 00:28:25,000 Speaker 3: person's true self, but you can compare what other people 497 00:28:25,200 --> 00:28:28,159 Speaker 3: say about you based on your actions to what you 498 00:28:28,280 --> 00:28:31,960 Speaker 3: say about yourself in private, and that comparison can tell 499 00:28:32,040 --> 00:28:34,480 Speaker 3: us a good bit. Now, the authors do explore some 500 00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:38,640 Speaker 3: complications here that extend from using self rated authenticity as 501 00:28:38,640 --> 00:28:41,520 Speaker 3: a standard. For example, they point out that previous studies 502 00:28:41,520 --> 00:28:46,120 Speaker 3: have found that people this was interesting. They perceive their 503 00:28:46,160 --> 00:28:51,760 Speaker 3: own positive actions as authentic to themselves relative to their 504 00:28:51,760 --> 00:28:55,320 Speaker 3: own negative actions, which are less authentic to themselves. You know, 505 00:28:55,960 --> 00:28:59,640 Speaker 3: that's how we are. And self ratings of authenticity also 506 00:28:59,680 --> 00:29:02,680 Speaker 3: appear to be influenced by mood, So maybe if you 507 00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:05,320 Speaker 3: are feeling in a good mood, you will also rate 508 00:29:05,400 --> 00:29:10,360 Speaker 3: yourself as a more authentic person. So there are complications here, 509 00:29:10,400 --> 00:29:14,360 Speaker 3: But understanding these limitations, I still think self ratings seem 510 00:29:14,440 --> 00:29:16,920 Speaker 3: like a good point of comparison to look at when 511 00:29:17,480 --> 00:29:21,240 Speaker 3: to compare with the ratings by others. So survey questions 512 00:29:21,240 --> 00:29:25,160 Speaker 3: asking people about their own authenticity would include agreeing or 513 00:29:25,200 --> 00:29:28,440 Speaker 3: disagreeing to a very on like a number scale, with 514 00:29:28,600 --> 00:29:32,400 Speaker 3: items like I am true to myself in most situations 515 00:29:32,880 --> 00:29:36,360 Speaker 3: or I am more sincere in my interactions than strategic. 516 00:29:37,160 --> 00:29:40,680 Speaker 3: This was to examine authenticity as a stable trait, meaning 517 00:29:40,720 --> 00:29:43,120 Speaker 3: like a sort of semi permanent trait of a personality. 518 00:29:43,440 --> 00:29:46,640 Speaker 3: But then they also measured what is called state authenticity, 519 00:29:46,920 --> 00:29:48,920 Speaker 3: which can change over time and is more of a 520 00:29:48,960 --> 00:29:52,640 Speaker 3: feeling in the moment with items like I feel fake 521 00:29:53,240 --> 00:29:55,959 Speaker 3: or I feel like I am pretending to be something 522 00:29:56,000 --> 00:29:59,680 Speaker 3: I am not. They also asked people to compare their 523 00:29:59,720 --> 00:30:03,360 Speaker 3: action to their inner selves with statements like there have 524 00:30:03,440 --> 00:30:05,800 Speaker 3: been times where when I felt like I couldn't be 525 00:30:05,960 --> 00:30:10,440 Speaker 3: myself with my classmates. And then participants were also asked 526 00:30:10,440 --> 00:30:13,960 Speaker 3: to judge whether others knew who they really were or not. 527 00:30:14,600 --> 00:30:16,800 Speaker 3: And then they also took a personality test based on 528 00:30:16,880 --> 00:30:20,240 Speaker 3: the Big five model. So what were the findings here, Well, 529 00:30:20,360 --> 00:30:25,440 Speaker 3: the researchers found that self rated trait authenticity was not 530 00:30:25,760 --> 00:30:30,960 Speaker 3: predictive of other rated trait authenticity, so in judging authenticity, 531 00:30:31,160 --> 00:30:35,360 Speaker 3: what people said about themselves had no relationship on average 532 00:30:35,400 --> 00:30:38,720 Speaker 3: to what other people said about them same thing for 533 00:30:38,760 --> 00:30:43,440 Speaker 3: state authenticity. State remember was I feel fake versus the 534 00:30:43,440 --> 00:30:46,800 Speaker 3: permanent trade of I am fake again. In this case, 535 00:30:47,040 --> 00:30:51,280 Speaker 3: no relationship at all emerged between self ratings and other ratings. 536 00:30:51,880 --> 00:30:55,880 Speaker 3: Same for the questions about acting authentically. No pattern of 537 00:30:55,880 --> 00:30:59,520 Speaker 3: correlation between self ratings and other ratings. Overall, there was 538 00:30:59,640 --> 00:31:05,120 Speaker 3: no significant relationship between self and other rated authenticity, which 539 00:31:05,160 --> 00:31:08,000 Speaker 3: is pretty strange given how confident we are that we 540 00:31:08,600 --> 00:31:11,240 Speaker 3: that we know whether others are being authentic or not. 541 00:31:12,720 --> 00:31:15,800 Speaker 1: So all that mental energy you may put into deciding 542 00:31:16,160 --> 00:31:20,080 Speaker 1: whether you're gonna wear that T shirt today, it may 543 00:31:20,120 --> 00:31:23,160 Speaker 1: be just completely useless, because people are going to decide 544 00:31:23,160 --> 00:31:27,640 Speaker 1: you were being authentic or inauthentic via that choice, in 545 00:31:27,680 --> 00:31:29,120 Speaker 1: a way that has nothing to do with how you're 546 00:31:29,160 --> 00:31:29,840 Speaker 1: feeling about it. 547 00:31:30,120 --> 00:31:32,520 Speaker 3: Yeah, and this doesn't rule out that there will be 548 00:31:32,720 --> 00:31:36,560 Speaker 3: individual cases where you accurately perceive that somebody is being 549 00:31:36,600 --> 00:31:38,880 Speaker 3: fake with you. I mean, obviously we do probably make 550 00:31:38,960 --> 00:31:42,560 Speaker 3: correct judgments about that sometime. But what this study found is, 551 00:31:42,640 --> 00:31:45,040 Speaker 3: at least within this setting where it's like students working 552 00:31:45,120 --> 00:31:48,680 Speaker 3: together on classroom projects over the course of six weeks, 553 00:31:49,120 --> 00:31:52,320 Speaker 3: no pattern emerged at all. On average people could not tell. 554 00:31:53,400 --> 00:31:56,520 Speaker 3: One observation that struck me as interesting was that the 555 00:31:56,560 --> 00:31:59,480 Speaker 3: author is right. Quote, The majority of the variance in 556 00:31:59,560 --> 00:32:03,600 Speaker 3: authenticity ratings had to do with differences between the ones 557 00:32:03,840 --> 00:32:10,000 Speaker 3: making the ratings and across unique relationships rather than differences 558 00:32:10,160 --> 00:32:13,840 Speaker 3: in the target. So to explain that, at least within 559 00:32:13,880 --> 00:32:19,080 Speaker 3: this experiment, when you perceive someone else as fake, that 560 00:32:19,200 --> 00:32:22,840 Speaker 3: apparently does not have a lot to say about that 561 00:32:22,960 --> 00:32:26,720 Speaker 3: person individually and tends to say more about you as 562 00:32:26,760 --> 00:32:31,160 Speaker 3: the perceiver or the unique relationship between you and that 563 00:32:31,200 --> 00:32:36,080 Speaker 3: person you're perceiving. So there weren't like individuals in these 564 00:32:36,120 --> 00:32:39,960 Speaker 3: experiments who were repeatedly getting rated as fake or as 565 00:32:40,040 --> 00:32:43,600 Speaker 3: real by everybody around them. Instead the real, like the 566 00:32:43,640 --> 00:32:47,120 Speaker 3: patterns seem to emerge in the people doing the ratings 567 00:32:47,120 --> 00:32:51,040 Speaker 3: of others or in individual one on one relationships between people. 568 00:32:51,680 --> 00:32:53,720 Speaker 1: Okay, so yeah, so you can be very skewed in 569 00:32:53,760 --> 00:32:58,800 Speaker 1: how you're going to interpret an individual moving forward, Like 570 00:32:58,960 --> 00:33:01,040 Speaker 1: what's the name of our is it Jeff? Is Jeff? 571 00:33:01,080 --> 00:33:02,400 Speaker 1: Are hypothetical? Oh? 572 00:33:02,440 --> 00:33:04,040 Speaker 3: I think it was Jimmy today Jimmy. 573 00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:06,800 Speaker 1: Okay, So like if your first exposure to Jimmy in 574 00:33:06,840 --> 00:33:10,560 Speaker 1: the workplace is him like actually blatantly stealing somebody's lunch 575 00:33:10,600 --> 00:33:13,160 Speaker 1: and eating it in the break room and then you 576 00:33:13,280 --> 00:33:16,640 Speaker 1: have actual personal interactions with him. You might be inclined 577 00:33:16,680 --> 00:33:19,840 Speaker 1: to think, oh, this this Jimmy's a Snake's he's stealing 578 00:33:19,840 --> 00:33:23,560 Speaker 1: people's lunches and being sneaky, he must he must be 579 00:33:23,600 --> 00:33:26,800 Speaker 1: inauthentic with me as well. But of course, if we 580 00:33:27,080 --> 00:33:29,080 Speaker 1: slow that down and we think about it, it's entire 581 00:33:29,160 --> 00:33:32,560 Speaker 1: it's entirely possible for someone to have no qualms about 582 00:33:32,720 --> 00:33:36,800 Speaker 1: stealing people's lunches and also like be honest and well 583 00:33:36,840 --> 00:33:39,520 Speaker 1: meeting in their personal interaction with you. I mean, this 584 00:33:39,560 --> 00:33:44,560 Speaker 1: is not an impossibility in human behavior and personal judgment. 585 00:33:45,040 --> 00:33:48,320 Speaker 3: Right. So whereas you might think that if if one 586 00:33:48,360 --> 00:33:52,120 Speaker 3: person perceives Jimmy as fake, then everybody else will perceive 587 00:33:52,200 --> 00:33:54,200 Speaker 3: Jimmy as fake as well, but that's not the case, 588 00:33:54,440 --> 00:33:57,840 Speaker 3: right right, Yeah. Instead, it's more likely that that I 589 00:33:58,560 --> 00:34:02,320 Speaker 3: am perceiving lots of people around me as fake, or 590 00:34:02,360 --> 00:34:05,400 Speaker 3: that there's something special about my relationship with Jimmy that 591 00:34:05,480 --> 00:34:06,720 Speaker 3: makes me think he's fake. 592 00:34:07,000 --> 00:34:08,640 Speaker 1: Or I guess to put a positive spin on it. 593 00:34:08,680 --> 00:34:11,080 Speaker 1: You know, It's like you have you know, and I 594 00:34:11,080 --> 00:34:12,800 Speaker 1: think we probably have all had these situations where we 595 00:34:12,880 --> 00:34:15,480 Speaker 1: have a certain preconceived notion about somebody and then we 596 00:34:15,560 --> 00:34:18,640 Speaker 1: have a really positive interaction with them, and that turns 597 00:34:18,640 --> 00:34:20,480 Speaker 1: things around, and we may be able to reflect on 598 00:34:20,520 --> 00:34:23,040 Speaker 1: that later and be like, well, I used to and 599 00:34:23,080 --> 00:34:24,759 Speaker 1: it may boil down to I used to think this 600 00:34:24,800 --> 00:34:27,680 Speaker 1: person was inauthentic, and then I got to know them 601 00:34:27,719 --> 00:34:29,480 Speaker 1: a little bit, or then I worked with them a 602 00:34:29,480 --> 00:34:32,560 Speaker 1: little better or so forth, you know, and you know, 603 00:34:32,800 --> 00:34:35,560 Speaker 1: in those cases we can actually kind of see how 604 00:34:35,600 --> 00:34:36,320 Speaker 1: this can shift. 605 00:34:36,920 --> 00:34:39,200 Speaker 3: Oh, that's very interesting. I want to come back and 606 00:34:39,239 --> 00:34:42,239 Speaker 3: discuss the variable of familiarity at the end. 607 00:34:42,280 --> 00:34:42,480 Speaker 1: Here. 608 00:34:42,719 --> 00:34:47,200 Speaker 3: A couple more things before that, some interesting biases emerged 609 00:34:47,239 --> 00:34:49,040 Speaker 3: in the data. I'm not going to go into everything, 610 00:34:49,120 --> 00:34:50,920 Speaker 3: but just a couple of things that stood out to me. 611 00:34:51,560 --> 00:34:55,720 Speaker 3: One thing is people were likely to rate other participants 612 00:34:55,760 --> 00:35:00,719 Speaker 3: as more authentic than they rated themselves. So that's kind 613 00:35:00,719 --> 00:35:02,480 Speaker 3: of interesting. It compares to a lot of you know, 614 00:35:02,520 --> 00:35:04,719 Speaker 3: on a lot of measures, people kind of have a 615 00:35:04,760 --> 00:35:08,600 Speaker 3: high opinion of themselves. People on average rate themselves as 616 00:35:08,719 --> 00:35:13,560 Speaker 3: more honest, more altruistic, whatever than other people. But on authenticity, 617 00:35:13,600 --> 00:35:15,920 Speaker 3: at least in this experiment, that's not the case. People 618 00:35:16,040 --> 00:35:20,319 Speaker 3: on average rated other people as more authentic than themselves, 619 00:35:20,719 --> 00:35:23,120 Speaker 3: So they thought that they were a little bit faker 620 00:35:23,160 --> 00:35:24,360 Speaker 3: than everybody else. 621 00:35:24,600 --> 00:35:27,520 Speaker 1: In a way, though this could be it could be 622 00:35:27,600 --> 00:35:29,520 Speaker 1: kind of a backhanded conflict because it might not be 623 00:35:29,600 --> 00:35:32,520 Speaker 1: a situation of thinking that everyone around you has a 624 00:35:32,520 --> 00:35:35,719 Speaker 1: complex in her life, but kind of dismissing people as 625 00:35:36,040 --> 00:35:39,040 Speaker 1: being like just the sum of their actions, like not 626 00:35:39,080 --> 00:35:42,120 Speaker 1: even thinking about the fact that there is, you know, 627 00:35:42,200 --> 00:35:44,200 Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of inner thought going on 628 00:35:44,360 --> 00:35:47,160 Speaker 1: behind the scenes with a particular individual. It's like, Oh, 629 00:35:47,320 --> 00:35:49,120 Speaker 1: I just passed that person in the hallway. Yeah, yeah, 630 00:35:49,120 --> 00:35:50,960 Speaker 1: I guess they're one hundred percent what I see that 631 00:35:51,000 --> 00:35:54,640 Speaker 1: they are fine. Yeah, no questions of authenticity at all. 632 00:35:55,000 --> 00:35:57,200 Speaker 1: But it could be kind of a situation where, yeah, 633 00:35:57,200 --> 00:35:58,759 Speaker 1: you're just because you don't think about them, you take 634 00:35:58,800 --> 00:36:01,200 Speaker 1: them completely for granted, and you think that this one 635 00:36:01,200 --> 00:36:02,640 Speaker 1: thing you see them do is all they are. 636 00:36:02,920 --> 00:36:05,400 Speaker 3: I think that's quite possible. Another thing that was interesting 637 00:36:05,440 --> 00:36:07,759 Speaker 3: here we were talking about the idea of authenticity being 638 00:36:07,800 --> 00:36:09,640 Speaker 3: in the eye of the beholder, and that it like 639 00:36:10,760 --> 00:36:13,239 Speaker 3: ratings of the authenticity of others seem to say more 640 00:36:13,280 --> 00:36:18,800 Speaker 3: about the rater than the rate he Apparently people rated themselves. 641 00:36:19,239 --> 00:36:23,400 Speaker 3: People who rated themselves as more authentic also rated others 642 00:36:23,440 --> 00:36:25,640 Speaker 3: as more authentic. So there was just sort of a 643 00:36:25,640 --> 00:36:29,200 Speaker 3: direct correlation there, like I think I'm more authentic, thus 644 00:36:29,200 --> 00:36:31,000 Speaker 3: I think other people are more authentic. 645 00:36:31,440 --> 00:36:32,320 Speaker 1: Hmm okay. 646 00:36:32,840 --> 00:36:35,480 Speaker 3: And in this particular study, it found there were no 647 00:36:35,719 --> 00:36:40,239 Speaker 3: individual demographic facts or personality traits that resulted in subjects 648 00:36:40,239 --> 00:36:43,600 Speaker 3: being significantly rated as more or less authentic. Nothing really 649 00:36:43,640 --> 00:36:48,520 Speaker 3: about people seemed to contribute there. A third study attempted 650 00:36:48,560 --> 00:36:51,560 Speaker 3: to replicate study two with a larger sample size, but 651 00:36:51,760 --> 00:36:54,360 Speaker 3: with a few changes, this time with a mix of 652 00:36:54,480 --> 00:36:57,920 Speaker 3: virtual and in person interactions instead of just purely in 653 00:36:57,960 --> 00:37:01,640 Speaker 3: person meetings, and this study broadly found the same thing 654 00:37:01,640 --> 00:37:05,760 Speaker 3: as study number two. Also, study three found the same 655 00:37:05,840 --> 00:37:09,000 Speaker 3: biases as study two. However, in this study they did 656 00:37:09,040 --> 00:37:13,080 Speaker 3: find a couple of personality and demographic factors that correlated 657 00:37:13,120 --> 00:37:17,680 Speaker 3: with other ratings of authenticity. Here, people were more likely 658 00:37:17,719 --> 00:37:21,000 Speaker 3: to be rated as authentic if they were high in 659 00:37:21,040 --> 00:37:25,279 Speaker 3: the Big five personality trait known as agreeableness, and the 660 00:37:25,560 --> 00:37:32,760 Speaker 3: Big five personality traits are typically openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, 661 00:37:32,760 --> 00:37:38,160 Speaker 3: and neuroticism. Agreeableness is a general rating of pro social 662 00:37:38,200 --> 00:37:43,120 Speaker 3: tendencies including trust, kindness, generosity, things like that. So people 663 00:37:43,160 --> 00:37:45,520 Speaker 3: who were higher in trade agreeableness were thought to be 664 00:37:45,560 --> 00:37:49,439 Speaker 3: more authentic, and also interestingly, people who were a little 665 00:37:49,440 --> 00:37:53,399 Speaker 3: bit older were rated as more authentic. But overall, the 666 00:37:53,520 --> 00:37:57,839 Speaker 3: authors concluded, quote, we found no evidence that people can 667 00:37:57,920 --> 00:38:01,919 Speaker 3: accurately identify who is authentic. So that's the top line there. 668 00:38:02,000 --> 00:38:05,880 Speaker 3: We're going around making judgments about authenticity of other people 669 00:38:05,960 --> 00:38:09,880 Speaker 3: all the time. Maybe sometimes these judgments are correct, but 670 00:38:10,160 --> 00:38:13,360 Speaker 3: within the confines of this study with students working together 671 00:38:13,400 --> 00:38:17,120 Speaker 3: in classrooms, there was no correlation. On average. On average, 672 00:38:17,160 --> 00:38:20,040 Speaker 3: people were no better than chance at judging the authenticity 673 00:38:20,080 --> 00:38:22,879 Speaker 3: of others. Oh wow, now I want to come back 674 00:38:22,920 --> 00:38:25,720 Speaker 3: to the thing you were mentioning a minute ago about 675 00:38:25,760 --> 00:38:28,440 Speaker 3: people getting to know each other, rob because this was 676 00:38:28,480 --> 00:38:31,080 Speaker 3: one of the most interesting things that jumped out at 677 00:38:31,160 --> 00:38:34,719 Speaker 3: me from the discussion section of this paper. So the 678 00:38:34,800 --> 00:38:38,759 Speaker 3: author's write quote A surprising finding in our data was 679 00:38:38,800 --> 00:38:45,840 Speaker 3: that familiarity did not increase the accuracy of perceived authenticity. Rather, 680 00:38:46,239 --> 00:38:49,280 Speaker 3: the greater the familiarity between a raider and their target, 681 00:38:49,800 --> 00:38:56,399 Speaker 3: the less accurate their authenticity ratings became. Specifically, as familiarity increased, 682 00:38:56,880 --> 00:39:02,080 Speaker 3: other rated authenticity grew increasingly more positive relative to the 683 00:39:02,120 --> 00:39:05,560 Speaker 3: target's self rated authenticity. So does that make sense? Like, 684 00:39:05,600 --> 00:39:08,439 Speaker 3: as you get to know somebody better, they're over there, 685 00:39:09,040 --> 00:39:11,880 Speaker 3: still sitting there saying like, yeah, sometimes I feel fake. 686 00:39:11,960 --> 00:39:14,560 Speaker 3: I can't. I feel like I can't be myself around people. 687 00:39:14,880 --> 00:39:16,520 Speaker 3: The face I show the world is not who I 688 00:39:16,560 --> 00:39:19,319 Speaker 3: really am, and you are over time, as you get 689 00:39:19,360 --> 00:39:21,440 Speaker 3: to know them better, saying more and more like so 690 00:39:21,640 --> 00:39:25,400 Speaker 3: authentic and sow themselves interesting. 691 00:39:27,040 --> 00:39:29,400 Speaker 1: That's a fascinating one though, to try and square away 692 00:39:29,480 --> 00:39:32,040 Speaker 1: like what is because it's it would seem to say 693 00:39:32,040 --> 00:39:36,560 Speaker 1: something different about each individual in this relationship. 694 00:39:35,800 --> 00:39:38,080 Speaker 3: You know, Yeah, I mean there could be a number 695 00:39:38,080 --> 00:39:40,200 Speaker 3: of ways to explain that. I kind of wonder, and 696 00:39:40,280 --> 00:39:42,480 Speaker 3: I want to be clear, I don't have special insight here. 697 00:39:42,480 --> 00:39:46,239 Speaker 3: I'm just kind of wondering. I wonder if that could 698 00:39:46,280 --> 00:39:48,799 Speaker 3: be just a function of liking that, Like if we 699 00:39:48,880 --> 00:39:52,600 Speaker 3: think authenticity is a desirable trait, that like, good people 700 00:39:52,640 --> 00:39:56,080 Speaker 3: who are worthy of being liked are authentic. As you 701 00:39:56,120 --> 00:39:58,960 Speaker 3: grow to like somebody more because you know them better, 702 00:39:59,440 --> 00:40:02,879 Speaker 3: you just naturally like it drags up all of their 703 00:40:02,920 --> 00:40:07,680 Speaker 3: positively associated traits in your estimation, And that would include authenticity, 704 00:40:07,719 --> 00:40:10,320 Speaker 3: which is actually something you have no insight into. 705 00:40:10,680 --> 00:40:13,279 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and I guess you could. It could be 706 00:40:13,280 --> 00:40:16,160 Speaker 1: a certain amount of confirmation bias there too. Right, it's like, Okay, 707 00:40:16,160 --> 00:40:17,840 Speaker 1: you've reached a point where you like this person, and 708 00:40:17,880 --> 00:40:21,360 Speaker 1: therefore you encounter these various examples that you were just 709 00:40:21,400 --> 00:40:23,279 Speaker 1: gonna you're gonna hold up as oh, look, they're being 710 00:40:23,280 --> 00:40:26,360 Speaker 1: authentic there, and maybe you're gonna be more forgiving of 711 00:40:26,400 --> 00:40:32,120 Speaker 1: the moments that could be interpreted as as inauthentic if 712 00:40:32,160 --> 00:40:35,600 Speaker 1: you had a different mood or a different demeanor concerning 713 00:40:35,640 --> 00:40:38,520 Speaker 1: this person, you know, because, on the other hand, someone 714 00:40:38,520 --> 00:40:41,279 Speaker 1: that you have already sort of prejudged as inauthentic and 715 00:40:41,320 --> 00:40:43,560 Speaker 1: maybe you don't like them, something about them rubs you 716 00:40:43,600 --> 00:40:46,360 Speaker 1: the wrong way. You might be on sort of hyper alert, like, 717 00:40:46,360 --> 00:40:50,000 Speaker 1: all right, what's Jimmy doing today? That's just fake as heck? 718 00:40:50,880 --> 00:40:53,319 Speaker 1: Well what's he wearing? Ah? I can't believe you thought 719 00:40:53,360 --> 00:40:54,120 Speaker 1: he could pull that off. 720 00:40:54,480 --> 00:40:58,480 Speaker 3: That seems highly plausible to me. Yeah, but let's see. 721 00:40:58,520 --> 00:41:01,640 Speaker 3: Should we call part one one of our study of 722 00:41:01,640 --> 00:41:04,719 Speaker 3: authenticity there and come back and look at it some 723 00:41:04,760 --> 00:41:07,799 Speaker 3: more next time, maybe with explorations of authenticity and art 724 00:41:07,880 --> 00:41:08,960 Speaker 3: and music and film. 725 00:41:09,600 --> 00:41:13,160 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it'll it'll continue to be sort of a 726 00:41:13,239 --> 00:41:17,480 Speaker 1: quagmire though, trying to figure out what is authentic, what 727 00:41:17,600 --> 00:41:20,919 Speaker 1: isn't authentic, what is fake, and so forth. So yeah, 728 00:41:20,920 --> 00:41:24,440 Speaker 1: we'll get into some discussions of music and art and 729 00:41:24,520 --> 00:41:26,880 Speaker 1: film and so forth. So we'll pick up with all 730 00:41:26,920 --> 00:41:29,839 Speaker 1: that on Thursday. Just a reminder to everybody. That's Stuff 731 00:41:29,880 --> 00:41:32,440 Speaker 1: to Blow Your Mind is primarily a science and culture podcast, 732 00:41:32,440 --> 00:41:35,799 Speaker 1: with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, a short form 733 00:41:35,840 --> 00:41:39,440 Speaker 1: episode on Wednesdays, listener mail on Mondays, and on Fridays. 734 00:41:39,440 --> 00:41:41,520 Speaker 1: We set aside most serious concerns to just talk about 735 00:41:41,560 --> 00:41:44,400 Speaker 1: a weird film on Weird House Cinema. 736 00:41:44,880 --> 00:41:49,239 Speaker 3: Huge thanks to our guest producer today, Max Williams. Thanks 737 00:41:49,239 --> 00:41:52,120 Speaker 3: for stepping in. Max, it's a big help. If you 738 00:41:52,120 --> 00:41:54,840 Speaker 3: would like to get in touch with us with feedback 739 00:41:54,880 --> 00:41:57,360 Speaker 3: on this episode or any other, to suggest a topic 740 00:41:57,440 --> 00:41:59,799 Speaker 3: for the future, or just to say hello, you can 741 00:42:00,040 --> 00:42:02,680 Speaker 3: mail us at contact. That's Stuff to Blow your Mind 742 00:42:02,800 --> 00:42:10,640 Speaker 3: dot com. 743 00:42:10,680 --> 00:42:13,640 Speaker 2: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For 744 00:42:13,719 --> 00:42:16,520 Speaker 2: more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, 745 00:42:16,680 --> 00:42:33,279 Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.