But I think Paul goes too far: by keeping your identity too small, you lose out on the benefits of self-reinforcing loops towards having high agency and other desirable traits (which can also be induced even more strongly by collective identities).
To give an example of a popular self-help book which advocates for intentionally adopting identities, here are some quotes from Atomic Habits by James Clear:
“With outcome-based habits, the focus is on what you want to achieve. With identity-based habits, the focus is on who you wish to become.”
“You do it because it’s who you are and it feels good to be you. The more a habit becomes part of your life, the less you need outside encouragement to follow through. Incentives can start a habit. Identity sustains a habit.”
“The ultimate form of intrinsic motivation is when a habit becomes part of your identity. It’s one thing to say I’m the type of person who wants this. It’s something very different to say I’m the type of person who is this.”
“The more pride you have in a particular aspect of your identity, the more motivated you will be to maintain the habits associated with it. If you’re proud of how your hair looks, you’ll develop all sorts of habits to care for and maintain it. If you’re proud of the size of your biceps, you’ll make sure you never skip an upper-body workout. If you’re proud of the scarves you knit, you’ll be more likely to spend hours knitting each week. Once your pride gets involved, you’ll fight tooth and nail to maintain your habits.”
Is there a way to unify Paul Graham’s “Keep Your Identity Small” with James Clear’s recommendation to adopt identities in order to build Atomic Habits?
Paul Graham mostly talks about the inability to have fruitful discussions about things people have strong feelings about. James Clear, in contrast, is interested in individual self-improvement, i.e. in changing and sustaining behaviors and habits.
So maybe we could unify the two perspectives by suggesting that adopting an identity indeed makes some thoughts harder to think or discuss (and other thoughts easier to think or discuss), but that when it comes to behavior change, this can be an upside. For example, if you’ve adopted the identity “I’m fit”, then the thought “I don’t want to go to the gym today” becomes harder to think and to act on.
One approach would be to identify as someone who believes whatever is correct, rather than as someone who believes particular positions X, Y, Z. That might have some value. However, it might then make it painful to confront the possibility that you might have been wrong, which could motivate you to interpret new evidence in a way that favors your existing beliefs, or to avoid looking for new evidence.
So probably a better approach is to identify as someone who always goes through proper reasoning and epistemic behaviors (always, or at least usually). Someone who is happy to pick up new evidence, and cares more about doing proper reasoning than about reaching a particular conclusion; someone who will cheerfully admit that a belief was wrong, and would find it more embarrassing to admit “I stuck to that belief longer than I should have”.
To give an example of a popular self-help book which advocates for intentionally adopting identities, here are some quotes from Atomic Habits by James Clear:
Is there a way to unify Paul Graham’s “Keep Your Identity Small” with James Clear’s recommendation to adopt identities in order to build Atomic Habits?
Paul Graham mostly talks about the inability to have fruitful discussions about things people have strong feelings about. James Clear, in contrast, is interested in individual self-improvement, i.e. in changing and sustaining behaviors and habits.
So maybe we could unify the two perspectives by suggesting that adopting an identity indeed makes some thoughts harder to think or discuss (and other thoughts easier to think or discuss), but that when it comes to behavior change, this can be an upside. For example, if you’ve adopted the identity “I’m fit”, then the thought “I don’t want to go to the gym today” becomes harder to think and to act on.
One approach would be to identify as someone who believes whatever is correct, rather than as someone who believes particular positions X, Y, Z. That might have some value. However, it might then make it painful to confront the possibility that you might have been wrong, which could motivate you to interpret new evidence in a way that favors your existing beliefs, or to avoid looking for new evidence.
So probably a better approach is to identify as someone who always goes through proper reasoning and epistemic behaviors (always, or at least usually). Someone who is happy to pick up new evidence, and cares more about doing proper reasoning than about reaching a particular conclusion; someone who will cheerfully admit that a belief was wrong, and would find it more embarrassing to admit “I stuck to that belief longer than I should have”.