I think I understand where you're coming from now.

There's plenty of information out there that shows the evolutionary benefits of social mimicry, an off-hand example being shared expressions used to alert others in our social circles of danger, and in turn them using the same behaviours to alert us of danger.

Outside of a traditionally evolutionary context, the use of spoken language itself can be considered to be, or at least to be borne of, social mimicry and I think it'd be hard to argue that spoken language isn't beneficial to human interaction.

Social mimicry, however, is merely a part of what most consider the 'self'. It could even be argued that the true 'self' is a representation of the individual in the absence of these external influences.

Could you explain how you define the 'self'? This will allow me to have a better understanding of your concept of 'glorification of the self' and explain why, if I am already understanding correctly, my opinions differ.

I'm not sure how you read that as me agreeing, could you explain why you think I was?

This entire article is reductive and severely lacking in awareness.

"But here is the inconvenient truth: “I am a party/career, coffee/tea, outdoor/indoor, [insert any description] person” is largely a function of the desire to fit in some social groups, to follow what is considered socially “cool”, or the fear of being asked what you like and not knowing how to answer."

This reads as a totally self-influenced statement, ignoring all evolutionary advantages of social mimicry as well as the massive amount of variations in behaviour between people.