There’s some merit to this idea in general, but it begs the question: who are you? It can be argued that the ‘real’ you is a set of behaviours developed through your upbringing, education and social history to date. That might carry with it some unpleasant or maladaptive behaviours that, on the one hand, you may want to reject as not being the ‘real’ you, or if taking a tack of self-acceptance without thorough self-reflection, part of the ‘real’ you that you can and should change but which now seem like immutable traits.

Some time should be spent on figuring out what the ‘ideal’ you is - for no one other than yourself - to bring that closer into the field of being the ‘real’ you, then suss out which elements don’t fit from that ideal vision. It should also be noted that the ‘real’ you, despite maybe being based in some pillars that are resistant to this, can change over time - and that can be OK.

Signed: Guy who twisted himself into pretzel over the last decade and a bit, and is tasked with figuring this whole ‘real you’ thing again. Only core pillar I’m not questioning is “Kindness is key”, though with new modifier “but you must protect yourself from those who have no appreciation of it”.