I know we have heard people talk about others having 'natural' skills or traits, which indicates that it is something they didn't have to learn but were just a genetic predisposition they were born into.

I recently was listening to a leadership audio, with a leadership 'trainer' who basically was speaking about how to help leaders learn about humility, but then he went on to say humility cant be faked, which to me implies it is a natural trait that someone either has or they do not.

Which brings me to the general question about natural vs fake.

Is there really anything that cant be 'faked'?

In this day and age we have even learned how to 'fake' being male or female, we have learned to create fake appendages etc ... Certainly character traits that are judged by outward behaviors can be faked, even humility.

That is not to say that I don't give people the benefit of the doubt, until they give me reason not to. I don't have any habit of saying, "Oh hes nice but thats fake" or things like that about people I have no observational history with.

But ...

I believe anything that can be learned can therefore be unlearned, and anything that can be learned or unlearned can be faked, although some things not as convincingly as others.

Or is the whole point of 'faking' that others are convinced, if you havent convinced anyone did you still 'fake' it?

So, two questions.

Is there any character trait that cannot be faked?
and
Does faking require that someone is convinced in order to truly be faking?

Perhaps it's only faking until the acting becomes believable?

lol, its like the tree falling in the woods question

does it require a receiving individual to be carried out, like 'hearing' ?

Well, we can even fool ourselves sometimes... can't we?

I believe we're born with essene traits that define our authentic identity. I also believe most of us are capable of mimicing traits we didn't inherit, if we think they'll serve our purposes.

In a pedantic sense, yes.

For the sake of not writing a book, no.


Is it "fake" when there's no real consistent, universal, absolute definition or belief of what "male" or "female" means?


As an absolute? No.
I can sit in the closet with a flashlight and in my head (especially with the right drugs) convincingly fake being anything I want for at least a millisecond.


Maybe.
Is part of your definition of the term "faking" a specific intent to deceive?
Does your use of "truly" mean at all times there is an absolute omniscient objective perspective judging the universe?

I am of a different mind on genetic predisposition. I believe that 99% of all traits and dispositions are learned.

Here's why...

To determine if any behavior is learned, all stimuli that causes learning must be removed.
The only genetic predisposition is to "Be alive", "To exist".
It occurs at the point of conception when the chromosomes form.
Everything that happens after conception is an effort to "remain" alive.

To isolate, by removing all possible chances of learning, would require an experiment that would not only be very complicated but bordering on sadistic. However, scientifically, it could be done.

First, the pregnancy would need to come to term with the mother essentially brain dead and immobile. All support functions would need to be carried out by automation including delivery. Absolutely no human contact.

The child would need to be left to its own methods to survive. To not tend the child in any way would cause the child to die. This is because it has not learned to nor is able to care for itself. This is not an exception to the rule it is the rule itself.

Every newborn learns to cry out for care. It does this to preserve its life. It learns that by crying out, someone feeds it or comforts it.
If it were to somehow survive without someone or something tending its needs, the ability for it to feed itself would indicate a genetic predisposition.
The sad fact is, neglected newborns die.

Everything we are, every trait, action and reasoning is a learned response to life. Everything.

We see practical applications of a less severe conditioning when we witness people being dislocated from their environment. Drop a person from an Amazonian tribe into the heart of a city. Drop a city dweller into the desert. We learn how to adapt to our surroundings because we are genetically dispositioned to survive.


The will to survive cannot be faked because if that will does not exist, you die.


By normal reasoning yes but delusional reasoning is a ruse that is perpetuated by oneself. To thine own self be true and all that jazz.

The complexity of the human mind can clarify or cloud anything we consider. It is possible and probable that we are faking things without even realizing we are faking them. Deep down, we think they are fake but we have been conditioned to accept those fakes as actuality.

Are we tired of doing this task because we have a calorie depletion or are we tired because we really no longer want to do that task at that time. Do we fake being tired from working because we want to lounge around the rest of the day or do we come home exhausted and immediately go to bed.

This OP deals with dishonesty and illusion. It tries to place blame on learned conditioning. Problem is, we all exist in society because of learned conditioning. Our primary genetic motivation is to survive, everything else is learned, including how to best survive.

There are many reasons why people are dishonest and sometimes people don't have purposed motivations for their dishonesty. However, the dishonesty is learned not genetic.

Many politicians and "world leaders" are fairly convincing fakes, up to the point it unravels around them.

Many religious leaders have been caught out as fakes, and even then their followers don't want to see it.

I'd say they are partially successful fakes.

Science shouldn't be able to be faked, just skewed and mis-interpreted.

Fake things doesn't last while natural is every lasting...I don't if I a sense on that?

sound's like the 'leadership trainer' is a natural fake

I think that almost anything can be faked but only to certain degree - over time I believe that the faker's true personality comes out.For example, you may regard someone as being a kind person or sincere or caring, but if you know the person long enough and in different circumstances, eventually their true character will be revealed. Some people are extremely good actors and fake different character traits and emotions, but only for a certain period of time, or in certain situations. For example someone might appear to be kind, but when called to act that way fail - ie. not supporting a friend or being rude to strangers.

Just my opinion.

Maybe it's just natural for some to fake it...

The fact that maybe you have to learn humility doesn't mean it's fake. And of course you cannot fake it, then it wouldn't be humility. Doesn't change the fact you can learn humility.

I don't think you need someone to be convinced in order to be successful at faking.
I believe oftentimes we know when someone is faking, and in many situations it's the done thing.
For instance phoning a help desk/ customer service. They are trained to be kind and helpful in order to hold up the company's reputation. Does anyone buy into their kindness? Not really. We all know they don't really give a chit. We even exploit the fact they have to fake being kind --> we know we can get rude and impolite because they still have to remain kind and friendly.
Are we convinced about them being kind? Nope.
Do we want them to fake it anyways? Yes, otherwise we go to the competition with better faking employees.
So does faking require you to convince people with it? Nope.

The real you i think that's something that can't be faked

Complicated.

First off, I think you have a couple of possible mistakes here:
"I recently was listening to a leadership audio, with a leadership 'trainer' who basically was speaking about how to help leaders learn about humility, but then he went on to say humility cant be faked, which to me implies it is a natural trait that someone either has or they do not. "

One is, that any behavior or attitude (or characteristic) can be faked, including humility. I've seen humility faked MANY times. Mainly by egotistical males who want to make headway with females who say they like a guy with humility. You put sex at the goal line, and most guys at least, will head straight for it, no matter what stunts they think they have to pull. MAYBE the intention was to say that for humility to be a positive trait, it has to be real.

I also think you drew an erroneous conclusion. I don't think everything has to be there from birth, or be faked. Some traits or characteristics can be learned, or otherwise acquired. Humility in particular is one of those. Acquired humility, at least the "flavor" of acquired humility that I personally support, is where the self-confident person comes to recognize both the limits of their abilities, and even more important, learns that no matter how talented or capable they are, that they are never inherently superior to anyone else, never more important to humanity than any other individual.

Another word for it is PERSPECTIVE. Perspective can always be acquired, if the person doesn't use their ego to block their own brain.

All that aside, where I am personally convinced that people are either "born that way or not," is limited to human body mechanics. Specifically, brain chemistry is controlled mechanically in the body, which is why different people react emotionally in different ways to the same stimulus, even before life experiences begin to influence their judgments. In some extreme cases, a person can be physically incapable of feeling one emotion or another, because the brain structure and chemical function isn't present to do so, or is impaired by defect. This is why brain injuries can result in large emotional shifts in a person.

If we just stick to reasonably biologically normal people, we get to the next complexity level. There's more than one reason for someone to try to fake a positive characteristic. The obvious reason is to fool someone else, to gain their favor. But there is also a huge market (so to speak) in the "fake it till you make it" approach to DEVELOPING positive habits, traits, and life characteristics.

One of the things I had to change in myself in this way, was my tendency to melancholy. In order to try to become more generally positive, especially in public, I taught myself to have a positive "resting face." That was one part of the development. The other big part, was disciplining myself to seek out the possible POSITIVE aspect of anything that struck me as negative about my life. Looking for silver linings or up sides, so to speak. This is the kind of "faking" that doesn't require a successfully fooled observer, because the reason for faking is not to fool anyone at all. Not even myself.

Faking, or at least "enhancing" one's positive traits, is intrinsic to dating for the vast majority. That's why society in general, has always at least strongly hinted or advised people in pursuit of true love, to take their time dating, before doing a lover's leap of any kind. Since almost everyone IS acting their best (one way and another...players-best has different goals and techniques) during dates, the only way to see what someone's REAL core character is, is to witness their behavior under a wide variety of situations and conditions.

One of my favorites, is to observe how the person behaves towards people who are officially their inferiors, or who are socially not there to be pleasing to. Such as wait staff in restaurants, sales clerks, and so on. Someone who is the epitome of politeness to official equals and superiors, isn't impressive to me. Unless they are also that way with the "peasants" as well, no matter how nice they treat me, or my mom, or my friends, or their boss, if they are callous towards "little people," they've proven that their "positive traits" are limited in scope.