I think you are using the term inhibition in a prejudiced way.

I experienced religious indoctrination and those kind of inhibitions and political propaganda and cultural norms are not rational inhibitions.

I think if someone behaves in an undesirable way when they are uninhibited it does not mean it is not the real them. For instance people react differently to alcohol and so people will say it is magnifying their true character. But I don't think behaviour under alcohol and drugs is uninhibited in a true sense. I think the behaviour is more likely to be influenced by the substance.

I think what people might want is authenticity where someone is not under undue influences. The problem might be however that there is no authentic personal and that we just build our identity from social influences.

One area where societies have become less inhibited is in terms of sex. I think sexual repression is not healthy and sexual liberation within civilized boundaries is more authentic.

I do not mean to imply that what we do under inhibitions is the real us. What I'm saying is that the influences we generate when we have the full capacity of our faculties is much far-reaching outwardly, towards others, as well as inwardly, towards our true selves. It does not mean such influences reflect the absolute truths about who we are but they do reflect as much as we have developed and unfolded in ourselves. This is because, everything that we refer to as a 'something' implies an organisation of limits which define that 'something'. Those limits are the inhibitions with which that 'something' maintains its integral form, character or conditions and which, when removed, we would consider the 'something' as different.
A person may go from being a prude to being sexually promiscuous and overt in behaviour and still there would remain certain inhibitions in them.

Perhaps, I expressed the idea in an inconclusive way. Intoxication just makes it harder to communicate/express our inhibitions but, what I seek is, how much of, or in what way do, our inhibitions define us (or something of our true selves) and how do they relate with our most primal influence, our will-power or the impulse we generate towards 'something'?

So, basically, my proposition is this: that inhibitions are evidence of an active will-power, without which, a person can neither be said to be intentional in application of intelligent influence and, to some degree, even the instinctive reactions are diminished. — BrianW

The problem with this idea is that many inhibitions have a neurological source that is not conscious and cannot be consciously rejected without great difficulty, if at all.

In general, I would, of course, say that particular inhibitions exist for reasons beyond mere character deficits like cowardice or simply being diplomatic. Though I think some of your examples just demonstrate that people are contradictory, capricious and complicated.

The problem with this idea is that many inhibitions have a neurological source that is not conscious and cannot be consciously rejected without great difficulty, if at all. — Judaka

I think because inhibitions affect our mode of expression, they will necessarily manifest as components of our psyche because all activity seem to begin there, from intentions to desires to reasons, whether we are initially or partially conscious of them.

Though I think some of your examples just demonstrate that people are contradictory, capricious and complicated. — Judaka

I'm trying to find the connection between inhibitions (the restraint we apply un-/sub-/consciously) and will-power (the motivation towards 'something') because they both seem to reflect a symmetry in the nature of force/influence they exert such that they could almost be said to be different phases of a singular factor.

I'm trying to find the connection between inhibitions (the restraint we apply un-/sub-/consciously) and will-power (the motivation towards 'something') because they both seem to reflect a symmetry in the nature of force/influence they exert such that they could almost be said to be different phases of a singular factor. — BrianW

I think will power can be in service of inhibition or lack of inhibition.

Some religious people or conservatives use their will power to enforce their self restrictions. Some anarchist types will deliberately try and express themselves as freely as possible.

I think will power can be in service of inhibition or lack of inhibition. — Andrew4Handel

Yeah, my thoughts are also thereabouts. I'm also wondering how the ability to will is affected by the centres of the brain which are associated with control and decision-making.

My take on the subject matter is this: We are born a certain way. Literally. Our genetics combined with the habitat of our upbringings decides what kind of person we will become base-line. This is ourselves without inhibitions. We do not try to change ourselves, because this is who we are and who we know. Later on, however, we may want to be someone different. This is where inhibitions come in. By inhibiting our actions, we can change who we are fundamentally. Let me use a personal example. I used to be a real dick to people for self-entertainment. I, later on, viewed that as wrong, and inhibited myself from doing those things. I still completely have the capability to be an asshole for no reason, but I don't, I stop myself from doing that, in an effort to change myself, because my views now considered it as wrong. Inhibitions do stop us from being our natural selves, but being different from your base-line self is not a bad thing. Unless, of course, we are talking about people who copy other people, or change themselves for others, and those things. But that's a different story.
That's my take.

So, basically what you're saying is that to instill inhibitions in your behaviour there was deliberate application of will-power. Also, I'm thinking that even before the change in behaviour there still were other inhibitions manifest in other facets of life. So, perhaps, there is a level of will-power which designs those instinctive inhibitions that are not necessarily a result of deliberate and reasoned out processes.

I think another point I'm trying to make is that free-will or will-power is not necessarily the deliberate application of influence, but that, it could be in evidence in instinctive (sub-/un-conscious) mechanisms. Thus, we could look at free-will/will-power as just the capacity to generate distinct influences upon ourselves and the environment (inner and outer). Because, like you said, our lives are still governed by nature much as we change/adapt for different reasons and circumstances.

it might seem like will power but how would you feel if you went ahead and behaved in a bad way to people?

I was and still am quite overweight. I have been a veggie for most of my life, and I joined up with a vegetarian forum, and pretty soon got into problems with a vegan there....she set me straight as to what she thought of the consumption of dairy..and man I felt pretty bad...it came to a crunch one evening when my thought processes, as I remember them, lead me to think that if I didn't give up dairy, and throw in eggs as well, then I would be living a lie...arguments for vegetarianism(in terms of the right way to treat animals) inevitably lead one into veganism if one is consistent. indeed the term 'vegetarian' started off as a term for not eating meat, milk and other products of animal husbandry. The term was kind of hijacked to include eggs and dairy, and a faction of the veggies broke off and came up with the term 'vegan'...which they said was the begging and end ofvegetarian-ism..

After that moment I gave up eggs and dairy by and large; gave away my cheese, and let my eggs go unused, and they were thrown away eventually.
This put huge restrictions on the food I would eat, and after around 6 years I had lost 10stone...with really no will power at all....all I was doing was trying to be consistent with the reasons I had been vegetarian and the way I would in future chose the food I ate.

I went back to vegetarianism at one point when someone gave me some chocolate bars...and I have sort of yo-yo-ed back and forth between veggie and vegan(mainly) since then...I am currently in the process of giving up animal stuff again...but it is partly out of a feeling that animal produced foods are unpleasant...I had that feeling since I was a kid...and it does help motivate giving such stuff up..

This is part of the problem with weight loss; there isn't really anything wrong with being overweight, so there isn't really any way that attempting to be morally consistent will lead to weight loss, for most people...and they are left with naked will-power alone.

Trying to shame a person to lose weight is like trying to shame a person to give up eggs, dairy and ,meat;;;it just doen't work, because the shame for most people isn't based upon anything much, other than the suggestion implied that it is immoral not look slim, or immoral to not go along with the rest of society, and then there is the idea that it is immoral to act in ways that lead to ill health...if that was a consistent argument one could argue that mountain climbing was immoral, or skydiving, motor sports etc...but it usually isn't applied to things like that.

I was always athletic until I became diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder/schizophrenia. Then the medications changed my metabolism, energy levels, and hormonal balance. I started taking Nugenix four weeks ago, and now I have the energy to go to the gym five times a week for the last four weeks. I haven’t lost any weight, but I’m getting stronger and feel better. I’m benching 240 pounds now and getting stronger every week.

I was in the rugby team at school for a while, and the atheltic team....all on and off, as I wasn't that intrested in those sports. What I wanted to play was tennis; I actually enjoyed that, but it was only the girls who played that back at my school in the 80s, and my sports teacher was very disparaging of the idea of the boys doing it....I think he thought it was for wimps....wonder what he thinks now after the success of Tim Henman, and Andrew Murry...

I was a runner for fun in the mid 90s and ran a half marathon and a few 10 Ks and 10 mile race...things kind of felt appart after that and I ended up putting on a lot of weight ant weighed as much as 36stone at the maximum....low 20s now...but seem to have plateaued a bit around that weight.

I went off my medication for seven months in my twenties and started running and doing push-ups and sit-ups. I lost 50 pounds in that time. Had to go back on my meds because my shrink threatened to commit me. I’ve been on various medications consistently for the last 13 years and some are worse than others for weight gain and energy levels. I started Loxapine five months ago and added thirty pounds when I was already pretty overweight, but I feel better mentally on Loxapine than on Thiothixene. It’s a trade-off. Either you are somewhat sane on meds but physically worse-off, or you are physically fit off meds but you live in an asylum. There’s nothing good about schizophrenia.

my GP once gave me some pills that were supposed to reduce appetite. They had the opposite effect and made me ravenous...the 'paradoxical effect'....appetite isn't really the reason I ended up overweight anyway..it was more to do with boredom, inactivity and feeling stuck.

Apathy and anhedonia are things I’ve dealt with, too. Perhaps it’s inevitable in any intelligent creature’s life?

that inhibitions are evidence of an active will-power — BrianW

Inhibition is passive - we're the object, inhibited. Will power is active - we're the subject, willing. I guess they're playmates of some sort.