I see them as two distinctly different things.
One reflects deception...where someone is usually acting in a way to get or achieve something in a single moment. The other reflects a perpetual lack of emotional and/or intellectual depth.
Okay, I can see that. I guess on one hand it seems like someone who is capable of thinking/exploring deeply would tend to be more authentic because they actually know themselves better. Whereas a shallow person would tend to be less genuine since they don't even know themselves, much less being able to share themselves with others in an authentic/honest way.
But I guess the tendency toward deception or honesty is really a separate personality factor from the ability to understand one's self.
Okay, slightly related question...people who copy others...do they lack depth, or are they just people pleasers?
I guess that's kind of a cryptic question...it's hard to clarify. There are several people I know who describe themselves as "intense", "deep thinkers", "truth seekers". And yet, rarely do they seem to have an original thought all their own. Nearly every time they come up with a thought or concept that seems deep, I can trace it back to something I've heard (or said!) recently, and I'm not even around these people all
that much. It's like they just regurgitate what's already in the psychological/spiritual environment, and they don't even realize that it's not an original thought with them, that they've repeated someone else sometimes nearly word-for-word.
I know I used to do that when I was younger, because other people's thoughts were so fascinating to me, and I learned so much as I made those thoughts/ideas/insights my own. So I think there's definitely something to that process. But these people are older than I am, supposedly more experienced. Some of them are leaders in our church. I don't want to criticize...like I said, I don't know them well enough yet to really understand what's going on. I just want to understand.
What's the difference between people who can truly create new ideas (even if the ideas already existed, they're fresh creations within a specific person's mind/experience), versus those who simply repackage someone else's ideas? Is one thought process more authentic than the other? Of course we're designed to learn from each other. hm. Maybe they've got the better approach...grab the best of what everyone else has already figured out so you're not always reinventing the wheel, so to speak. But then you never come up with truly new ideas.
To me, this is like the difference between learning math by simply memorizing an algorithm, versus learning math by truly understanding the concept and practicing real, critical thinking and problem solving. The latter is true mathematical skill. The former is just follow-the-leader.
Okay, done blabbing...for the time being
