Eric,

Thanks for your response. This article was built off of something I learned a while back, and it was, in fact, something I learned while reading up on the gym. I'll probably wind up writing another piece on it, actually, since talking about it now with you and other commenters is bringing more of it to mind.

The big question is, how do we change our identity? And the article I read pointed out that you can't just willfully change it (or, if you can, that's a particularly difficult road). Rather, identity changes through "proof" as we observe our behavior.

So one of the key takeaways is that simple, focused action is likely to have ripple-effects that reverberate through our being and change how we see ourselves.

Trying to do it from the opposite direction -- that is, trying to tackle every visible aspect of the thing you want to change, across the whole of our being -- is likely to make us spread ourselves thin and we won't get anywhere.

That's the idea, at least. But I've grown comfortable with the idea that no mental framework is ever really "complete" -- often, for one framework, there is an exact opposite that also rings true. So what you talk about here -- the fact that a stubborn identity can actually dampen the transformative power of action -- makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two perspectives, but I think that different people, at different points in their lives, will need to hear one or the other more, to help them move.

I wonder, maybe, if part of it is that some people have identities that are actively hostile to the types of changes they're trying to implement? It's one thing, for example, to think "I'm a slob" but really want to change, but another entirely to think "I'm the type of person who hates cleaning."

It seems the second would be much more hostile to transformative action.

Anyhow, your thoughts on that would be interesting; in the meantime, thank you kindly for commenting.

Best wishes,

J