I think it's important to distinguish what one might call "inauthentic behavior" and "behavior that goes beyond ones own personal preferences".
The party example is a good point. A very common thing is to go to a friends party as a show of support for their thing, and to, for lack of a better word, have numbers be good. But it's not inauthentic to support your friend's thing! Sometimes you do a thing because it's for someone else.
And when the wave of departures happen... there is a mix of "I also wanted to leave", but "oh I guess it's time to leave" is another, and "oh I'm not totally done but it's starting to end so" are all on the spectrum of possibilities, and ones that I've held.
I think this group behavior is ... authentic and human. Acting on what you are thinking, at its extreme, is kind of indistinguishable from having no impulse control.
I feel that people, these days, are more free to express their "inner voice," more often.
In some cases, this is good. In others, it is bad.
One of the rationalizations that I hear, for "hate jockeys," is "Hey, they're just saying what everyone thinks!".
There's a reason that we don't say everything that we think. We're actually experiencing object lessons, in exactly this, in society, these days.
In my case, basic courtesy is why I "behave unauthentically." It's not lying, or even dishonesty. It's basic human relations.
Extreme example:
I'm routinely dealing with the types of people many folks in "polite society" think should be euthanized. It sucks, when those people say what they think.
When we say "These people should be killed/hurt," then some folks take the rhetoric as support for their actions.
> I'm routinely dealing with the types of people many folks in "polite society" think should be euthanized. It sucks, when those people say what they think.
I do take your point overall, but in this kind of example would it not be better to bring it out into the open and discuss it? Granted it would likely be an unpleasant conversation, but they do hold an unpleasant opinion, so why not make them go through the unpleasantness of defending it?
Because they don’t actually need to defend it. We see that all the time, these days. When someone is called out on extreme rhetoric, they don’t bother to defend it. They just throw ad hominem attacks at those that question the position, and double down on their BS.
It works a treat. Trying to “call out” people, these days, simply gives them a new platform, and actually amplifies their hate.
The slightly more nuanced version of this is: Behave authentically when you're pro-social and mask when you're tendency is anti-social. The trick that's happening is that pro-social behavior is being applauded for it's authenticity when in fact, it's just pro-social.
"Always be yourself, but always be your better self."
People are complicated animals, just because I have a personal preference or a personal tendency, doesn't mean it is inauthentic to exercise self-control in pursuit of a larger, different goal.
