Selective Identity

Generally, when you have an identity of X, you are likely to be influenced to stay within the socially acceptable boundaries of identity X. Identity boundaries can often be destructive, but when cautiously used, can be a good way to stay accountable. If you have X affiliation as a part of your identity, then it can be difficult to explore ideas outside of the boundary for what the affiliation believes is acceptable. Going outside the boundary can lead us to be branded as "not a real member" of said affiliation. There's a strong evolutionary case that being an outcast is heavily disincentivized for us biologically, making it painful to venture beyond what is acceptable. This originally led me to the conclusion that to not be influenced, one needs to reject all forms of identity. Since you have no boundaries to hold to, everything is free game. This is good for idea generation and exploration, but not so good when curating ideas. Fortunately, you can still use frameworks such as utilitarianism for sorting ideas without group bias. There still are good uses for identity though: for example, it is a great way to keep you accountable to values you may have committed yourself to. For example, I usually keep "Rationalist" and "Effective Altruist" as identity markers for myself because it helps me understand and act in the world more quickly and aligned to my values. Although I would then be constrained by the affiliation I'm warning against, these two Identities are more about meth…