I can see how this could be a helpful reframing for some folks, but IME centering your attention on how to title yourself can have the reverse effect, which is to encourage you to indulge in an identity that doesn’t have much substance underneath.
I had a phase where me and my friends all thought of ourselves as writers and artists. At the extreme, there was a buddy of mine who would answer simple questions by prefacing with, “Well, as a writer, I tend to X.” And X would be many secondary tendencies you might associate with writers: look at the world differently; ask annoying questions at parties; overanalyze pop culture; drink too much caffeine; procrastinate; joke about procrastinating, etc.
The problem is that most of us didn’t do the only X that matters, which is to actually write. And I think we knew this on a subconscious level, and it was why we were so angsty all the time. (Being angsty is another X that writers are supposed to do, so it was a vicious cycle.)
Writers who don’t write seems like a niche phenomenon of a narrow and privileged set, but I feel like I see this elsewhere. I’m an engineer these days, and I occasionally come across junior folks who have a similar thing going on. Especially in bigger orgs, you can see people struggle for years with this: there’s something about the job they like (perhaps what the job seems to say about them as individuals), but they have a hard time with the actual moment-to-moment work. I generally think it’s not my place to judge people, let alone gatekeep or call people out on it, but I sometimes feel that I did those folks a disservice by not telling them: hey maybe this just isn’t for you.
> The problem is that most of us didn’t do the only X that matters, which is to actually write. [...] Writers who don’t write seems like a niche phenomenon of a narrow and privileged set
Nah, I think this is super common across titles that people romanticize, mainly in the arts, since there's no real barrier to entry. (Unlike, say, claiming "I'm a lawyer" or "I'm a doctor.") I've seen tons of people say "I want to be/I am a musician" and then spend a bunch of time watching YouTube tutorials, hanging out in musician/producer Discords, etc. and not actually, you know, making music.
For a lot of people, "I want to do X" actually means "I want to have done X," and then reap all of the benefits that comes from that: the sense of accomplishment, the fame, social media follows, whatever.
These days I'm usually very suspicious of people who make big public pronouncements about how they're starting X task, whether that's going to the gym, learning guitar, building something in Rust, or whatever. If you wanted to do the activity, you'd just do it without all the pomp and circumstance. Every time I've seen a friend on social media announce they're going to start a grand new adventure, they fizzle out after a month or two. The ones who get shit done will show up to a party looking amazing and casually mention, "Yeah, I've been hitting the gym."
Very strange that right after the arts are two titles that are highly romanticized. Back in the days I owned my own business and had a sizeable medical client base, I cannot tell you how many doctors had to buy a BMW because their other doctor friend has a BMW and you're not one of the "doctor club" unless you own one.
I come from a family heavily involved in the criminal justice system, and the lawyers, police, and judges I know have the same problems with falling in common tropes.
And don't even get me started on engineers. Give them 10 minutes and we'll tell everyone how liberal arts are the end of the world ;)
> I cannot tell you how many doctors had to buy a BMW because their other doctor friend has a BMW and you're not one of the "doctor club" unless you own one.
I've seen it as well.
Also, medical professionals tend to only be around other medical professionals for most of their 20's and early 30's, which really helps create a kind of insular and closed culture. Having to match for residencies and fellowship doesn't help (you'll get shipped somewhere you know nobody and be forced to work long hours and your only support network will be colleagues). It's not that dissimilar to how a cult operates when you really think about it.
It's no surprise they come to identify strongly with the tittle and will do things to fit in with the "club".
> Very strange that right after the arts are two titles that are highly romanticized. Back in the days I owned my own business and had a sizeable medical client base, I cannot tell you how many doctors had to buy a BMW because their other doctor friend has a BMW and you're not one of the "doctor club" unless you own one.
New York investment bankers and stockbrokers. I don't think any of us want to know all the American Psycho shit that goes down in those professions, but I do know of one anecdote (which I can't cite but may have gotten from Hackernews years ago): Apparently, the thing to do if you're in high finance in NYC is to live in a posh apartment in Manhattan. You could live in a (relatively, this is NYC) cheap apartment in Brooklyn or the Bronx and save a bit of money to put towards retirement or whatever -- but you will be looked down on by your peers and passed over for promotions. The higher-ups want to see you "hungry", as they think it makes you more loyal and driven.
Yeah there have been studies that as soon as you tell someone about the thing you're intending to go, be it go to the gym or become a musician, that causes you to lose motivation. But in today's Instagram, pour your heart out online, hyper connected world, trying to build up that follower count for online clout world, narrating your own life is how you live in it. It's one thing to proclaim I'm going to go to the gym and become hella ripped like the Rock and then can't follow through, it's another thing to be a smartphone addicted person that's posts every time they're at the gym. Point is, some people like the pomp and circumstance, others really hate the spotlight. What'll blow your mind is the fact that those two groups often work together, with one person working behind the scenes and the other being the face of things. Ghostwriting isn't just about writing.
> "I want to do X" actually means "I want to have done X,"
I co-authored a book with someone, which ended up meaning I did 90% of the work and they could be prodded with considerable effort to contribute in a few areas and give feedback. But they were thrilled to have been an author and hand out copies etc.
No real harm from my angle. I have no issue with them being a co-author. Doesn't hurt me. But a perfect example of this principle. A former boss at a small company was a somewhat similar example. They liked being a $X. They came to not like doing the work of being a $X.
Agreed on the first point. I let other people call me an artist or photographer or pianist or whatever I deserve - I don't even need to agree with it, and I've replied that holding a camera doesn't make me a photographer more than standing in a garage makes one a car or going to $RELIGIOUS_PLACE makes one a $RELIGIOUS_FOLLOWER - but I am growing into rocking the PhD title that I proudly earned.
>For a lot of people, "I want to do X" actually means "I want to have done X,"
I think in many cases it's more like "I want to want to do X." They think it would be great to be flowing with words, musical ideas, technical ideas, ready and motivated to create, but presently they are not.
> For a lot of people, "I want to do X" actually means "I want to have done X," and then reap all of the benefits that comes from that: the sense of accomplishment, the fame, social media follows, whatever.
What's interesting to me is that sometimes even 'doers' feel this way. There are days when I absolutely love practicing and training and there are days when I wish I could reap the rewards without putting in the work.
This is a trick I learned a long time ago, and why I still hate standup. If I need/want to do something, the more time I actually spend talking or thinking about it, the less likely it is to get done.
If you actually want to get it done, don't talk about it, just do it.
I’m often called an artist by people who know me IRL, which annoys me for a bunch of reasons. One is that I don’t see myself this way. I just sometimes do stuff that is art-adjacent. Another is that making it a noun instead of a verb reduces me entirely to that one side of me and also suggests that it is something very stable, something that I’m going to be for the rest of my life, because well this is who I am after all. “I shoot photos”/“I make films”/“I write poetry”/“I write software” has a very different shade than “I’m a photographer”/“I’m a film maker“/“I’m a poet”/“I’m a software developer”. The latter feels very reductive.
You can view it as a label and the nice thing about labels versus boxes is you can have a bunch labels at once. Labels and identities are also temporary. Being something doesn't inherently mean you'll be that way forever. I say "I was a pilot" since I don't fly anymore, even though I still have the licenses. Someday it will be that "I was a software engineer". Someday it will be "I was alive".
Nice that you think in that way :-) I wonder though if what you look at as labels, many others treat instead like boxes?
F.ex. if they've classified you as a software engineer, then ... I'm thinking it doesn't occur to most people that you might be a writer and musician too hmm
I’m sure that happens. In lots of cases there’s nothing I can do about that. In many cases, an hour or two together is enough for people to drop that with me, personally. I’m pretty “boundary dissolving”.
What I don’t think will ever really work, though, is getting introduced as a software engineer and being annoyed at people for it. Or, even speaking up, “that’s something I do, it doesn’t define me”.
It’s pretty hard to convince people of stuff by telling them. It’s just about impossible to convince someone your are not contained by an identity when it seems to have such a tight hold on you.
I’m an awful interviewer, mostly in the sense that I just don’t do it. I certainly don’t give people the warm fuzzies by asking them questions that seem like I’m taking an interest in them.
What I do have going for me is a willingness and ability to bounce around between many different planes of reality and meet people on whichever one they choose (or that I can lure them too). The boundary dissolving is first internal, being willing to try many different things, be many different people. And never cast those old selves aside. Even if you throw out the tennis racket, don’t throw out the tennis player.
And when you talk with someone, feel around, see where you can meet them. And then meet them there, without preamble or apology. If you think they’re interested in tennis, just go into a conversation about it with the confidence of already being at a match together. This feeling out is also rooted in the present moment. I’ve probably asked someone “where did you go to school?” around three times in my life just to try it out, and was bored with myself before I finished the sentence. Can’t imagine asking “didja play any sports?”. But a game on the TV in the bar that someone is checking for the score is enough to see if we can meet there. Often we don’t, and that’s fine, too.
I still wonder if "He (or she) is a poet ... And a software developer" causes a conflict to arise in many people's brains. They want it simple, pick one?
Whilst "He writes software and poetry" doesn't? Or to a lesser extent?
Personally I say I build software, not that I'm a software eng :-). (And that I practice the guitar ... for real)
> I had a phase where me and my friends all thought of ourselves as writers and artists.
The difference between this and what the article's talking about is that you never wrote, and you never made art. If you had, you could've credibly called yourself those things while you were doing them, even if sporadically and/or badly.
> "We become a runner when we start running a few days a week."
The article makes the point that it's okay to think of yourself as a [title] once you start doing the things
a [title] does. From that POV it's not encouraging delusion, just generosity toward oneself.
If you're not writing, you're not a writer, thus if you want to be a writer you need to write and just doing it once doesn't mean anything, you have to keep doing it, because if I once ate a vegan meal, it wouldn't mean that I'm vegan.
You are what you do. While you're writing you're a writer. The more time you spend writing the more of a writer you'll be.
If you want to call yourself a writer, you have to write.
That's why I always say, judge people not for their words, but for their actions.
The advice seems to be "as long as you're writing, you're allowed to call yourself a writer. don't have an ethereal unachievable standard that needs to be reached first before you're allowed to use the title."
There is also the opposite. Ie, people who seem to actually do a lot of a given thing, but dislike the culture of the people in said field and hence don't identify with them and would never call themselves that thing. It's probably not as common, but it's there.
> I can see how this could be a helpful reframing for some folks, but IME centering your attention on how to title yourself can have the reverse effect, which is to encourage you to indulge in an identity that doesn’t have much substance underneath.
I agree. Cemented in my mind is the use of the word "activist" by all corners of our political spectrum, and especially among techies in the last decade. At present when I hear the word I have to walk myself through dropping all the gut-reaction feelings attached to that word because of the behavior of people who didn't know what they were doing and acted very poorly. This is an isolated example of one, but I'm sure it translates across subjects.
How often do you hear "As a parent ...", especially used to justify a completely unremarkable statement. "As a mother, it's important that my child is healthy" - duh.
I think a big part of my personal development is not attaching my identity or self-worth to existing or established hierarchies. That's just status-seeking.
Like, if you studied math or CS, or studied to become a MD... Maybe you're prone to take yourself to seriously because of it. There is and will always be a feedback loop in society because we are all humans and always seeking attachment (in the psychological sense) to other humans.
I have self-worth because I do not try to justify it relative to something I do not control, like a Ivy Leage graduating class, FAANG, or whatever, but instead of accepting myself as I am.
Same and so it is with most of my favourite people to work with: those who are very technically competent, collaborative and with amazing personalities.
Unfortunately, this is a losing strategy in corporate environments and you will be outcompeted and replaced by relatively average and territorial status seekers.
No I still don’t play the game, yes I wish I could turn off the “ick” and just do it.
> most of my favourite people to work with: those who are very technically competent […]
I’m similar but I would say that being curious is the fundamental trait, and competence usually falls out as a side effect. It’s always fun to be around curious people, sometimes especially if they’re not experienced.
> Unfortunately, this is a losing strategy in corporate environments and you will be outcompeted and replaced by relatively average and territorial status seekers.
This is not universally true. I would agree that overall things trend in this direction over time, but as long as a company is still growing and has the opportunity to win in the market, then collaborative doers can still beat talkers. Of course, politics are still the inevitable consequence of trying to coordinate thousands of people to figure out and execute on the right priorities without any individuals having anything close a full picture. If you're more of a heads-down thinker and builder then it's true you will be at a disadvantage against the social climbers—in the short run. But over time, provided the right feedback channels, the doers reputation tends to increase, while the talkers reputation decreases. Bullshit detection is 90% of the job of upper management in large corporations, it's a tough job and rare skillset, but when done right it results in an environment where good work and honest collaboration is possible and celebrated.
Some of the greatest achievers in human history like great scientists or artists were very modest. Some were the opposite and liked to brag.
It does not matter much if you brag or not, if you have titles or not. What matters is if you achieved something important.
There's a great half mad Russian mathematician who didn't take much part in society, lived with his mother and worked in complete secrecy. When the results of his works transpired somehow, he was awarded the Fields medal, the highest distinction a mathematician can get. That distinction came with a large amount of money. He rejected both the medal and the money even if he was poor. He achieved results and that is what matters.
Depicting yourself something you are not is grave. It means that you are either insane or you want to deceive others.
Yeah, I think identifying into roles is unwise in the long term. In addition to the benefits author cites, it also tends to distort one's thinking in bad ways: if you identify into something, threats to your status in that thing matter. It's obvious in political identities, but more subtly true in other ways.
I agree with this, but I also don't believe that it's an exclusive alternative to what the blog is suggesting.
Part of the path of acceptance is also accepting what your roles are in your life. These roles aren't about what is projected onto you, which is where a lot of the internal strife stems from, but instead how you are trying to see yourself.
The blog mentions titles like "writer", and it's a great example of a role. You should absolutely refer to yourself as a writer if that's what you're doing. If you're in marine biology you should absolutely call yourself a marine biologist. You aren't status seeking here, you are recognizing part of your identity.
The important bit of that is "part of your identity". You aren't "just" a writer or a marine biologist, so what other roles are core to your identity? Maybe you're a caretaker too. Again these are all parts of your identity and recognizing them isn't a bad thing, actually the bad part stems from the miscommunication.
Often when people are meeting each other, they will single out the larger part of their identity, for simplicity sake. We misinterpret this and believe that they are just that one role and project all past ideas of their role onto them. Jake is no longer Jake the writer and other mysterious roles I don't know about yet - he just becomes Jake the writer. Remedying this miscommunication involves recognizing how all identities are formed of parts, not a lack of identity, so we can then start viewing others as the complex beings they are.
I generally agree, but personally I don't think I have that much control over what is the source of my self worth.
I mean, it was enough for me to spend a few months in 2020 on a contract where I had easily 4x my previous rate to forever shift my self-percepction.
I've become a temporarily embarrassed high-rate contractor and I can't help it. Kinda shallow, but it's interesting that this feeling persists after three years.
It wasn't even a high rate by SV standards - just really high for my corner of the world.
I think there’s a tendency to self-describe as an X and start throwing around the lingo of X, to stave off concerns that we don’t really know what’s going on under the hood. Fake it ‘till you make it.
Personally I have an aggressively bad brain for lingo, so I try to get people to describe what they want in little words. If actually describing what they want in easily understood terms just happens to clarify things, well that’s a nice side effect!
I like the spirit of this advice, but I disagree with it for myself. I don't find that identifying as a role helps me commit to that role. And one of the most insufferable kinds of people is the one who says "I'm an artist" or "I'm a writer" or "I'm an entrepreneur" and it feels like an affectation, because they haven't actually sold a painting, or written a book, or started a business. Or, they've done these things half-heartedly, once, a long time ago. I'm not standing athwart the dictionary and declaring who is and who isn't what, I'm saying I wouldn't do that, personally, because I'd feel like I was insulting people I admire if I adopted their titles without feeling I'd paid the dues.
I think a better way to think about it is instead of adopting the title outright, think about "what would an athlete/writer/artist/etc do in this situation?" instead
This is similar advice to one of the Atomic Habits chapters about identity. You might find it a chore to go the gym if you frame it to yourself that way. But if you call yourself an athlete, or just "i'm a fit person" and that becomes part of your identity, it's easier to do. Works for me so far.
I thought about Atomic Habits when I read this too. The flip side that I think was also interesting to me was a few chapters later when the author talks about not letting any single identity become too overpowering.
> Avoid making any single aspect of your identity an overall proportion of who you are. Keep your identity small. The more you let a single belief define you, the less capable you are of adapting when life challenges you.
I read a similar method called shapeshifting which tries to one up this game. You need several titles and persons you know that are good in it then shapeshift into that identity on demand - eg on the night you gonna present an hour lecture for your peers give yourself the identity of a great presenter.
I never put it into practice I just find the idea interesting :)
I feel like this is motivational when you use it on yourself and misleading when you use it with other people. If I call myself a pianist or a Japanese speaker, people will get the wrong idea of my skill level and be surprised and disappointed to discover I am a beginner.
With other people, you can give an accurate picture by describing specific accomplishments you've achieved.
For example, with the piano, you might be able to say that you can consistently play a certain song from memory with occasional mistakes, while having trouble learning new pieces quickly (if you might have difficulty sight-reading).
For a language, you might be able to say that you can have a half-hour conversation without using English/your native language without too much difficulty, but you can't speak about technical or philosophical topics, and you might still be working on understanding how to use certain grammatical tenses.
Then, there's less reason for doubt from other people or yourself, as your skill level is communicated more objectively and less subjectively. The framing also gives you a nice clear path for what to work on next (for example, learning how to talk about a specific topic and understand a new grammar tense).
If you say you're a pianist, and others ask you to play, and turns out you can't play a single song properly -- chances are, some of them will now look at you as a bit of a poor judgement fool.
If one is fine with that, then yes, call oneself a pianist I guess?
Personally I'd say I was "learning to play the piano".
Or what about someone says: "I'm a Software Engineer" ... but then can't write the first characters in a FizzBuzz solution and wonders "what's a for loop?"
This is funny, but in common parlance if someone tells me they are an athlete; then I'm expecting they are either some sort of a athletic scholarship or are paid or sponsored in some way. Otherwise there is some strong probability that I will think they are a bullshitter.
I think this principle is most useful in the negative, i.e. not calling oneself negative things.
I recall seeing someone (I think in NY) trying to revolutionize math education by making certain that the concepts were easily graspable enough that students couldn’t not get it. His idea was that if someone labels themselves as “not a math person”, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
The labels we use to describe ourselves and others are very powerful and can impact our mindset and actions. We should be careful to use that to our advantage.
If it works for you, you should totally do this. Though I'd suspect it doesn't work for most people in the long-term, because the title/scene/prestige starts distracting from the process and work.
“I don’t believe in titles, I believe in work.” — Virgil Abloh
There is a dark side to this advice. Try calling yourself a thinker, a visionary, an ideas guy, a philosopher. Soon you start believing it, then it gets to your head and inflates your ego (already gigantic to begin with). And now your peers (or god forbid subordinates) are on a whole new level of misery when they have to deal with you.
I’m all for the ideas behind this but the reality is, just because you go to the gym, you aren’t an athlete. People who are, won’t recognize you as such and you calling yourself one before you are usually alienates you from that group you are trying to become.
Call yourself one internally. Don’t be public about it until someone else acknowledges it. You can convince yourself and that’s all that is required to have the OP effects outlined in the article. Just don’t go to the gym and tell the front desk you’re there to “train” like you compete in athletic competitions (origin of athlete) when you brought in your 40lb weight in your stomach.
I highly encourage anyone to try things. If you want to become an athlete or an artist. Call yourself one inside, internally, or write it down, post it’s or journals, just don’t go around in public with this “emperor’s new clothes” mentality.
I had a pastor who would ask the congregation, "If it were illegal to be a Christian and you were on trial, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" Very thought provoking. Now replace that with a job title:
"If it were illegal to be a <DevOps Engineer> and you were on trial, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"
It's thought provoking, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. In jurisdictions where it is illegal to be a Christian, the standard of proof is usually around the trappings of religion: you attended this service, you gave money to this church, you celebrated on this day. Nobody gets sent to the gulag for showing forgiveness or having faith in the Resurrection or whatever your pastor might actually have wanted to instil.
It's interesting though; the three things you mention are known as "Precepts of the Church" and they are modern commandments that we all must obey.
Yes, they are outward and superficial, but also, they are the sorts of things which lead to having faith, hope, and love.
Don't tell me that someone who does nothing else but attend a particular church service every week for 30 years will not be changed in some noticeable way.
And I'm a follower, so that is who "we all" refers to. I wasn't intending to include you. "We" means "me and them" in this case. Have a dictionary sometime.
Yeah, I’m all against gatekeeping too. If I called myself a scientist and I didn’t have a degree (yet) would I still be recognized as a scientist? That’s all I’m saying. So long as you identify as one and pursue it, you’ll become one. If you do the courses and earn it then welcome to the fold. I am not about to call myself an astrophysicist simply because I have an affinity for space and know the classifications of stars. That’s my point.
I think there's a lot of fuzziness about all of this.
Calling yourself a surgeon without all the medical degrees and certifications is ... alarming.
Calling yourself a scientist -- while it does imply a stereotype academic type in a white coat -- to me means you have an inquiring mind about the natural and physical world, that you observe carefully, that you experimentally test things, and you are prepared to change your mind based on evidence. Anyone can be a scientist: even a 10 year old.
It impressed me that on radio station Triple J in Australia, every Thursday they'd do a phone-in show with Dr Karl Kruszelnicki who would answer science questions. He would dignify everyone with a question by calling them "Doctor" in a kind of tounge-in-cheek way, and would give a prize if they'd done an experiment to test aspects about the question they had, and would use the phrase "you've done an experiment".
He really did a lot to bring the idea that science was not some far-away esoteric thing you need a degree for, but something that was in every-day life and anyone could do.
I'd argue for the opposite. Don't call yourself titles. Keep your identity small [1]. Actions speak louder than words anyway. A writer writes, and a painter paints. It's easy to call yourself either of those things, and make up excuses not to produce anything.[2]
Hadn’t read that Graham post but it’s spot on (and very HN, lol).
That said, it’s not easy to see why he’s “right” if you’re operating under external validation. Getting out of that mindset is, imo, the most difficult challenge. I’ve had friends who have struggled for many years and want to change, yet are sucked back in. It doesn’t exactly help that society is oriented towards that axis.
Saying “don’t do that” isn’t very effective. Instead, I think it’s better to express those ideas more clearly and see where it takes you. For instance, “I want to be recognized by my peers because…” and then follow along until you realize that you just want to be accepted and belong, and that’s ok. But then you’ll find it substantially easier and “truer” to find good people, instead of impressing a bunch of strangers who don’t care about you even if you’re cool. And then focus on how you’re gonna spend the rest of your time without worrying about other peoples judgments.
I don't think this is about telling your titles to others but adjusting your self identification to align with your aspired values.
It helps you be consistent.
For example, at some point I went from "guy who happens to do yoga" to a "yoga guy." At that time, what would I do when landing in a new city? Look up a yoga studio. Because I was a yoga guy. A guy who happens to do yoga wouldn't necessarily do it.
It's not about asserting who you are to others it's about facilitating your own decisions to be what you want. "a guy who's trying to be more active" may still eat a whole cheesecake. An "athlete" would not.
If we believe in ourselves, our confidence increases, which increases our performance.
The same way, if we don't, then we won't reach our full potential.
This is why the concept of depression is so frightening, because once you stop believing in yourself, your performance goes down, which stars a vicious cycle that makes you think of yourself negatively.
United airlines once set my title to "Lord" in a mistake I can't even begin to comprehend, and I briefly thought this article was going to be about that kind of thing.
I did have one fun flight though, during which I did not feel the need to immediately correct them.
Lots of comments here are casually dismissing a ton of psychological research on this topic out of a sense of what looks like philosophical or intellectual superiority. That’s too bad; this is unusually prevalent in our industry. When do you earn the title of software engineer? When you’ve written code? When you get paid for it? When you’ve published to ACM? When you make a million dollars off of an idea?
Humans use labels all the time. A title is just a label with some shared cultural meaning. Anything else you load onto it is arbitrary, and withholding those labels until that arbitrary threshold is met is just as silly as assigning the title when nothing is done whatsoever.
My title is “stupid fat piece of shit that doesn’t deserve to be loved.” I’ve tried the others, the positive ones. They don’t stick. “Liar” just gets added to the mix, and the original, positive title quickly fades away.
You are too hard on yourself, just like me and many others in our industry. I don't know what gives but the IT industry is plagued with impostor syndrome and other kinds of mental health related issues.
Be well and please, try to forgive yourself a little bit.
I'm not sure what this actually accomplishes, I can see how this can be counterproductive somehow. Somehow I think your giving yourself a title when you did not accomplish something is just acknowledging your own impatience and unrealistic goals.
Either you actually want to become an athlete, or become an artist, or become a pianist, and you need to accept the mediocrity of beginners and the effort and commitment it takes to achieve something ; which you might fail at.
Or you just want to exercise, draw, or play the piano, but don't want your life to revolve around that, not put too much energy into it, and accept to remain at an enthusiast level, and never become an athlete, artist or pianist, and there's nothing wrong with that. And maybe at some point you'll realize you really enjoy one of these and become athlete artist or pianist. Otherwise you can embrace your mediocrity and enjoy doing things for the sake of doing things rather than trying to become something.
It feels like calling yourself early on sets the unrealistic expectation that you need to live up to that title, and become dissatisfied because athletes run everyday, artist draw everyday, pianist play everyday, and since you're one you ought to, but you don't want to so you don't like it, and what you should do for fun becomes a chore.
Now maybe that's a framing because you really want to become something, and that's what carries you through pain, but I don't know how well that's gonna work when overdoing something will inevitably drive you away from it
I think this is pretty close to the real mechanism that lets "The Secret" and its ilk appear to work.
I suspect the world is full of "traditional" or otherwise "unscientific" beliefs where the supposed mechanism ("manifesting", "chi", etc) is objectively hot garbage but there's nevertheless a grain of truth in the inputs and outputs. The ones that persist today are the ones that are really hard to study. The relevant field here would be psychology; heard of this thing called "the replication crisis"? So I don't expect to get conclusive answers about what degree of truth or nonsense is in most of these ideas any time soon. As usual there are no easy answers, not even "science" or "common sense".
They tend to be emotionally polarizing to boot, so probably not even unlimited money would solve them.
I’ve also learned it’s ok not to be in the top percentile for that title. You don’t have to be David Goggins or Jocko, but you can apply their techniques to your own athletic program.
Similarly, when working with a trainer, I don’t let them dictate everything, even when it comes to strength programming. I choose what works for me.
I discovered quite opposite way for me enjoying the hobbies.
E.g.:
The fact that I enjoy photography and want to occasionally take out photo equipment doesn't make me photographer.
The fact that I enjoy making contribution to OpenStreetMaps doesn't make me a cartographer.
In the end, I can enjoy hobbies "sparsely" and I don't have to go all in nor frame myself in the role. Thus, article's advice would contribute to hobby burnout, thus - I don't need to be X to enjoy Y.
With post topic: I don't need to be an athlete in order to enjoy going to a gym, I find being amateur works better most of the time (as sometimes it's always good to embrace the title).
There was an episode of MTV's Made in which a teenage girl named Kylee prepares to enter a bodybuilding contest with coaching help from an experienced bodybuilder, Amy Schmid.
Kylee starts falling off the wagon with regards to her diet, and Amy intervenes, telling her: "You're a bodybuilder now." It's an attempt to get her into the mindset if "I'm a bodybuilder, therefore I do bodybuilder things like stick to my diet during contest prep".
If someone asks me the dreaded question: 'What do you do for a living?'. I always reply 'I'm a writer'.
Being a writer is such a vague thing and could mean anything. It's an open ended title, and the usual follow-up question is 'What do you write about?'.
You have the freedom to inject anything into the answer. Spout politics, complain and rant about current events, the person du jour etc
Seems somewhat like the inverse of the Imposter Syndrome concept (where you feel your successes are just a thin manufactured veneer over a more banal reality).
And to some degree that's true, we're all experiencing similar emotional gamuts despite the titles we wear.
The world is plenty full of people who do titled work without a title. The difference is less about the work being done, and more about the social grouping.
I think the message is positive and of course people should believe in themselves, etc., but at the same time, titles should mean something.
At least prefix your title with "amateur" or just call yourself an enthusiast. Otherwise you're just lying to yourself and others, and that's how impostor syndrome starts.
I like math. I read math textbooks on the weekends sometimes. I would never call myself a mathematician.
I don't have an engineering degree but I have called myself an engineer for years. I'm not licensed or bonded. But it's getting to be drab, everybody does this. So I stepped up my game and now I call my self "Doctor Professor." I'm thinking about trying on Father, Senator, and Colonel too.
It's inspiring to see how embracing our new roles can positively influence our decisions and motivate us to stay consistent in our endeavors. This mindset shift can help us cultivate resilience, patience, and persistence, qualities that are essential for overcoming challenges and achieving success.
"Specialization is for insects". humans are capable of much more than being limited to a specific area of expertise. This idea can be a great starting point for anyone who struggles to try new things. However, becoming a first-principle thinker can be an even more powerful tool.
At a previous company as a joke on corporate bureaucracy and obsession with titles and climbing corporate ladders they let us pick our own titles: Staff Cat Wrangling Engineer E12, Architect XIV, etc It was kind of fun to see what people picked.
And yet, you will then adopt the identity of a person who doesn’t limit themselves with titles and identities. It’s a bit of a paradox but it works with how our brains operate: we use heuristics to understand the world. So labels will be applied by your brain one way or the other, and you will either consciously or subconsciously adopt or reject those labels, no matter what your chosen philosophy on the matter is.
Hmm. The meditation lineage I come from would suggest that identifying myself with external names is more counter productive than productive. Like most things I guess it depends how you do it and whether you get addicted to it.
If you can point to a title that is not backed by subjectivity, I’d like to know about it.
The examples that tend to come up here are things like Lawyer or Medical Doctor. And yet, every person in those fields is still subjectively different from the next in terms of knowledge and qualification.
I’m not claiming nothing objective is being used; I’m claiming that the title application is subjective, because humans determine when the title is applicable - not some external source.
This is a classic motivational tool. I've been hearing variants of it, for pretty much all my life.
I suspect that it is effective, because of its lasting power.
It doesn't really do much for me, but that has more to do with my personality, than the effectiveness of the technique. I tend to be a fairly hard-core realist, and can't really fool myself.
I am, however, quite used to powering through the "Jon Snow Trough"[0], [1]. That's pretty important, in developing a long-term skill.
using titles is just such a burden.. i'd rather just be myself, who enjoys the hell out of stuff and let people in dire need of belonging come up with titles.
These comments are interesting. Many commenters are noting that they wouldn't use a title for themselves because they haven't become high-level performers in that area, and that it is pretentious to do so. Others are saying that it is helpful for them in their performance in those areas.
Is a beginner runner still a runner? Is it necessary to add a qualifier? When do they become a runner if they aren't one already? Why is there resistance to labeling a beginning runner as a runner?
I think there is a vast difference between someone asking what I do for a living and replying "I'm a runner" versus someone asking "do you work out?" and replying "yeah, I like to run."
However, the difference in the mindset of the person replying to the workout question: "I'm a runner" versus "I like to run" is pretty profound, especially in the beginning stages of becoming a runner.
This effect has been explored.
> Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self
>Abstract: Three randomized experiments found that subtle linguistic cues have the power to increase voting and related behavior. The phrasing of survey items was varied to frame voting either as the enactment of a personal identity (e.g., “being a voter”) or as simply a behavior (e.g., “voting”). As predicted, the personal-identity phrasing significantly increased interest in registering to vote (experiment 1) and, in two statewide elections in the United States, voter turnout as assessed by official state records (experiments 2 and 3). These results provide evidence that people are continually managing their self-concepts, seeking to assume or affirm valued personal identities. The results further demonstrate how this process can be channeled to motivate important socially relevant behavior.
Additionally, affirmations (which what this particular intervention actually is) have been shown to be beneficial in many areas. This is a nice overview:
>The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention
>Abstract: People have a basic need to maintain the integrity of the self, a global sense of personal adequacy. Events that threaten self-integrity arouse stress and self-protective defenses that can hamper performance and growth. However, an intervention known as self-affirmation can curb these negative outcomes. Self-affirmation interventions typically have people write about core personal values. The interventions bring about a more expansive view of the self and its resources, weakening the implications of a threat for personal integrity. Timely affirmations have been shown to improve education, health, and relationship outcomes, with benefits that sometimes persist for months and years. Like other interventions and experiences, self-affirmations can have lasting benefits when they touch off a cycle of adaptive potential, a positive feedback loop between the self-system and the social system that propagates adaptive outcomes over time. The present review highlights both connections with other disciplines and lessons for a social psychological understanding of intervention and change.
This is a ridiculously pretentious article with absolutely zero substantial evidence behind it. Furthermore I would actually argue this would probably have the opposite effect because it sounds very similar to a study that demonstrated if you brag about a project you want to work on, you're significantly less likely to finish it.
> calling ourselves with the new title very early in the process
AKA lying. I have total respect for someone who wants to improve their life, but you dont need to lie, just be honest with yourself and others. the author even admits to it:
> We become a runner when we start running a few days a week. An amateur one, a beginner in the world of runners, but a runner nonetheless.
so you are not a "runner". you are an "amateur runner". and thats totally fine! I personally am an amateur runner. I dont go around telling people I am a runner, because at the end of the day, all I would be doing is lying to others, and lying to myself. Its OK not to be perfect at something from the beginning. just stick to it and try hard. when you really feel you've stepped up to that next level, then sure, go ahead and remove the "amateur".
I was able to run two Ragnar relay races, even though I’m a 275lb dude, partially due to this idea. I don’t run anymore because of continued injury but I became a runner and did so for over a year. It likely helped my fitness tremendously. And, I wasn’t lying to myself or anyone else. I was running three times a week and competed in two races. I was learning and designing my own interval running patterns. I was a runner.
I noticed you said "was" and not "am". I think that's the point others here are making. You put in the work and did what it took to become a runner. However, the author of the article is advocating calling yourself a runner once you've gone on one or two runs. That's not the same. The point of my first sentence being that you don't call yourself a runner when you're not running regularly and perhaps others shouldn't either.
A wise man I know once said that the difference between man and animal is that while some animals like apes CAN be indoctrinated (the banana experiment) humans WANT to be indoctrinated.
I had a phase where me and my friends all thought of ourselves as writers and artists. At the extreme, there was a buddy of mine who would answer simple questions by prefacing with, “Well, as a writer, I tend to X.” And X would be many secondary tendencies you might associate with writers: look at the world differently; ask annoying questions at parties; overanalyze pop culture; drink too much caffeine; procrastinate; joke about procrastinating, etc.
The problem is that most of us didn’t do the only X that matters, which is to actually write. And I think we knew this on a subconscious level, and it was why we were so angsty all the time. (Being angsty is another X that writers are supposed to do, so it was a vicious cycle.)
Writers who don’t write seems like a niche phenomenon of a narrow and privileged set, but I feel like I see this elsewhere. I’m an engineer these days, and I occasionally come across junior folks who have a similar thing going on. Especially in bigger orgs, you can see people struggle for years with this: there’s something about the job they like (perhaps what the job seems to say about them as individuals), but they have a hard time with the actual moment-to-moment work. I generally think it’s not my place to judge people, let alone gatekeep or call people out on it, but I sometimes feel that I did those folks a disservice by not telling them: hey maybe this just isn’t for you.