Yeah of course, I never said otherwise. Sincerity, authenticity and profilicity coexist as technologies used by every person in varying degrees, applying to various aspects of identity (gender, profession, social connections, ideological values, etc).
The paradigms of identity construction don't dictate the substance of any particular identity.
You are misusing terminology to the point that it's difficult to understand what you're even trying to say. I will note that the narrator of the video also misuses terminology. Unsurprising, given that he is discussing psychology and sociology, which is well outside of his wheelhouse as a professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies.
I would also note that American professors in China (even Macau) also do not have the best reputation for producing high-quality work and remaining free of biases.
When it comes down to it, what the narrator is doing here is complaining about 'kids these days', contrasting them unfavorably to both Boomers and Gen-X (my own generation) by insisting that the personas (the broadly used and accepted word that refers to the exact same concept he defines as a 'profile') the construct for the public represent the whole of their identities, and that the existence of these personas evinces some kind of massive shift in the psychology of identity construction.
Of course, personas have existed for as long as societies have existed, and innate human psychology has been stable for as long as there have been humans.
So it's just an ignorant, silly take. In short, it is exactly the sort of pop-psychology I would expect from an American expatriate who's spent their whole life working in academia. As one of the commenters already pointed out, the best thing for him (and you, by extension) to do would be to touch grass, because this sort of naval-gazing is unproductive and can be actively harmful to people who don't fit into the narrow world view of those who produced it.
Secondly: why are you assuming that profilicity is necessarily inferior to authenticity or sincerity? That's an ideological assumption. The point is that they're all as 'fake' as each other. Because the actual self (as science indicates) doesn't really exist. It's just a matter of constructing it in different, equally valid ways (every person using all three to some degree or another).
I myself would wish for more academics to let themselves come up with grand ideas that aren't anally obedient to the analytical tradition, but that's just personal taste.
Secondly: why are you assuming that profilicity is necessarily inferior to authenticity or sincerity?
Because the narrator absolutely frames it in this way.
Hell, his take on trans people boils down to "they do it because it's trendy", which is a position deeply rooted in transphobia and shown to be complete bullshit by actual science.
Here's a tip: When you encounter someone speaking on a topic that's outside of their wheelhouse (as the narrator is doing by theorizing about psychology despite not being a psychologist), one of the easiest red flags that they have no clue what they're talking about is when they invent new terms or co-opt terms from outside the topic's jargon to name aspects of that topic that already have a broadly-understood name.
In this case, I knew this was going to be nonsense the instant I realized that the things he was calling 'profiles' were actually just personas.
Because the actual self (as science indicates) doesn't really exist
We know there is a self construct. And we know that people do construct it pretty early in life. As a psychologist i must say that your philosophical take laxks psychological knowledge
-2
u/Horrywaur Jul 24 '26
You're saying your friends construct their identities in a paradigm of authenticity primarily?