I think we use “identity” to mean two different things.
The first form of identity is one of self-description. How would you, or someone else, describe you? Are you a writer? A martial artist? A speaker?
I’ve been described as all three of these things. Why am I a writer? Because I leveraged a previous blog into thousands of dollars of freelance writing and because I’ve written a weekly column for a website for the past two years as part of my job. Why am I speaker? Because I gave a talk about game design at the University of Washington. Why am I a martial artist? Because I have a purple belt in kenjutsu.
Does any of that tell you anything about me, fundamentally, as a person? I claim that it does not. Tim Ferriss is also a writer, speaker, and martial artist, and that doesn’t help you compare him and me as overall human beings.
This is because all three of these identity descriptions are based on results, and we don’t all agree on the results necessary to earn a description. A “writer”, under this discussion frame, is a person who trades words for money… unless you choose to measure someone’s writerhood by how influential their ideas are. The definition of “speaker” is equally malleable, and may or may not require paid work. And who can possibly define what a “martial artist” is in anything resembling a useful way?
Most descriptive identities are vague, and they are especially so when we look at them as aspirations. If you told me that you wanted to be a doctor, and I was feeling particularly snarky, I might ask you how you will know when you’ve succeeded. Will you be a doctor when you get your M.D.? Will you be a doctor when you finish twenty successful heart surgeries? Will you be a doctor when you own your own practice? If you don’t know, then when can you be secure that you’ve made it?
It would be fair to describe me, right now, as a game designer, as I receive money in return for time spent making games. If I wanted to transform from a game designer into a pizza delivery guy, I could quit my job, call up a Domino’s, and deliver twenty pizzas. If I wanted to transform into a college professor, I could start reading behavioral economics journals, apply to graduate schools, get a Ph.D, and then fight for tenure. If I wanted to become a pop star, I could start taking voice and dance lessons, then recording and posting YouTube videos of my performances until a record label signed me. Some of these transformations can happen faster than others, but the point is the same: results-based identity is eminently hackable with some work.
That should be exciting to you. Do you want a new and different description? Define the specific results you want that would make you feel that you’ve earned it, then go and produce them.
There is another consequence of the hackability of descriptive identity: becoming attached to a descriptive identity of oneself is silly. These descriptions are results-based, and you can change them on the fly to match anyone else’s set of descriptions, so they’re useless for the purposes of defining yourself for yourself.
If descriptive identity isn’t useful, we are clearly missing something, as I don’t know anyone who would claim that every human is the same. What is the second form of identity, and how do we find it?
That is a question for tomorrow.
{ 1 comment }