One big problem with authenticity is that there is a lack of consensus among both the general public and among psychologists about what it actually means for someone or something to be authentic. Are you being most authentic when you are being congruent with your physiological states, emotions, and beliefs, whatever they may be? Or are you being most authentic when you are congruent with your consciously chosen beliefs, attitudes, and values? How about when you are being congruent across the various situations and social roles of your life? Which form of "being true to yourself" is the real authenticity: was it the time you really gave that waiter a piece of your mind or that time you didn't tell the waiter how you really felt about their dismal performance because you value kindness and were true to your higher values?
Another thorny issue is measurement. Virtually all measures of authenticity involve self-report measures. However, people often do not know what they are really like or why they actually do what they do. So tests that ask people to report how authentic they are is unlikely to be a truly accurate measure of their authenticity.
Perhaps the thorniest issue of them all though is the entire notion of the "real self". The humanistic psychotherapist Carl Rogers noted that many people who seek psychotherapy are plagued by the question "Who am I, really?" While people spend so much time searching for their real self, the stark reality is that all of the aspects of your mind are part of you. It's virtually impossible to think of any intentional behavior that does not reflect some genuine part of your psychological make-up, whether it's your dispositions, attitudes, values, or goals.
- Scott Barry Kaufman, Authenticity under Fire