Beliefs + Behaviors vs. Identity

Distinguishing between our beliefs (what we think), our behaviors (what we do), and our identities (who we are) is a critical part of growing and learning. It also happens to be our best defense against shame. For starters, let's define these terms. 

Beliefs are temporary opinions we hold based on the limited information we currently have available. 

Behaviors are the choices we make and actions we take based on our beliefs. Both our beliefs and behaviors can change easily when we learn from our experiences. 

Identity is the core traits and values that we choose to embrace and embody. When we establish an identity, our beliefs and behaviors will typically evolve to be in alignment with it. While beliefs and behaviors are constantly changing, identity is where we choose to drop our anchor.

Why is this differentiation so important? 

When we think flexibly, test theories, make mistakes, and learn from them, we shouldn’t feel like we're betraying ourselves. Changing our beliefs and behaviors frees us to adapt to our circumstances without shame. Alternatively, if we think that being wrong or making a mistake reflects our actual identity, we’ll view any cognitive or behavioral flexibility as a character flaw. This traps us in belief systems and behavioral patterns that don't even represent our authentic selves.

As children, many of us were taught that our actions represent or even define us. This perspective is completely backward. What we think or do at a single point in time is not who we are. If that were the case, we’d be doomed to be "bad" the first time we make a bad decision. Fortunately, if we don't like the impact that our beliefs and behaviors have on the world, we can change them to be more representative of who we actually are.

How do we know if we're confusing our beliefs and behaviors with our identity?

Three maladaptive (unhelpful) patterns tend to show up when we don’t differentiate. They include shame, defensiveness, and rigid thinking.

Shame: Tying our beliefs and behaviors to our identity makes it way too easy to sink into self-loathing. Every regrettable choice we make seems like proof of our fundamental inadequacy. We think, "If I were a better person, I wouldn't have done that." This leaves us feeling powerless to change. 

Defensiveness: When we think our actions represent our identity, we have a very fragile sense of self to defend. If we make any mistakes or cause unintended harm, we feel vulnerable, instinctively trying to defend ourselves. When someone calls us out for being wrong about something, it feels like an accusation that we’re a bad person. Naturally, we get defensive.

Rigid Thinking: The last trap of conflating our beliefs with our identities is inflexible thinking. Rather than holding our beliefs loosely, we cling to them. We think that compromising or changing our minds will make us lose ourselves. This leaves us trapped in our refusal to change.

None of those outcomes are necessary, though. Our beliefs and behaviors don't define us. Recognizing this distinction brings surprising liberation and empowerment. When we have regrets, we don't need to feel doomed or ashamed. Our regrettable past beliefs and behaviors no longer represent us. Because we’ve learned and grown, we can be a more authentic version of ourselves.

Can't We All Be Empaths?

Translating ideas into words can be a frustrating task, especially if you grew up bilingual like I did. Sometimes I daydream about recreating language from the ground up, defining every new word explicitly without any past baggage. I don’t think miscommunications are the only thing that has been keeping us from Eutopia, but they sure have played a big part. 

When it comes to ideas that have been distorted by our imprecise language, empathy is near the top. For example, there has been a growing trend of identifying oneself as an “empath” and, I have to be honest, it’s not my favorite. As far as I understand, being “an empath” means you’re naturally equipped with greater empathetic abilities than the rest of the population, making you emotionally perceptive in a super special way (picture me giving you a thumbs up.)

No shade if you identify as an empath (well, maybe a little shade), but I find this idea to be quite unhelpful. It suggests that empathy is a trait that only a small group of people are good at, like being a speed reader or having a photographic memory. Apparently, if you’re not born with the empath chromosome, you’re out of luck (insert shrug emoji here). In reality, empathy is accessible to everyone, regardless of personality or aptitude. Even sociopaths.

Our “being an empath” language covertly and wrongly suggests that we shouldn’t ever have to try to have empathy. Despite its universal accessibility, authentic empathy can be absolutely counter-intuitive sometimes. If we’re thinking of empathy as an instinctual, automatic experience, we’re likely to give up on it the moment it doesn’t feel right. This is why intentional empathy, the kind that goes beyond our narrow comfort zones, requires a solid foundation of two things: non-judgment and curiosity. 

Since, as I mentioned earlier, miscommunications are the bane of my existence, it’s time to define these two terms. I know definitions may not be the juicy content you came here for, but it’s my blog, so...

Non-Judgment

When we make a judgment, we’re making a subjective determination of the validity or value of someone or something. It’s pretty egotistical if you think about it. Fortunately, judgments can be identified fairly easily by their broad categorical labels like “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad”, etc. They also tend to come with a false sense of certainty that has us constantly finding validation and getting more and more closed-minded to other perspectives.

Here’s an example of how judgment can work against empathy. As a card-carrying cat person who is allergic to dogs, I might find myself tempted to make the following judgment: “Anyone who likes dogs is stupid.” In addition to being insensitive, adopting this bias would mean that every time I meet a dog person I’ll automatically be looking for evidence that proves my judgment of them is correct.

False certainty, the closed-minded commitment to the correctness of our own judgments, robs us of neutrality. While it may be comfortable, insulated in our self-assurance, the confidence it offers is a delusion. The world is infinitely complex and each human has their own unique experience of it, so nearly all “certainty” is either premature or altogether false. #SorryReligion

If we want to use intentional empathy, the critical first step is adopting a stance of neutral non-judgment. When we encounter someone new, instead of slapping our judgmental labels on them, we need to consciously call out our biases and guard against them. Why bother? Non-judgment allows us to gather data for empathy without arriving at a foregone conclusion. Now let’s talk about how we gather that data. 

Curiosity

Just like judgment undermines empathy, false confidence in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of our data can sabotage it. Whenever a therapy client of mine tells me about a frustration they're having with someone, they hear this simple mantra: “What questions do we need to ask?” Before forming any opinions, we try to ask as many relevant questions as we can to understand the situation from all angles. This requires curiosity.

If you’re a scientist and your goal is to determine if being a dog person is indeed “stupid” or not, your first step will be to gather data without making premature judgments. That’s no guarantee of an accurate result though. The way you gather your data makes a major difference. If the only people you survey are cat people, no matter how non-judgmental you are, you’ll still come to the false conclusion that dog people are stupid.

The purpose of curiosity is to remind ourselves that there is always information that we don’t know. By approaching empathy with an attitude of curiosity, we can fill in the blind spots that we didn’t even know we had, learning what we didn’t know we didn’t know. Recognizing the limits of our knowledge makes it much easier to reserve judgment. It also hopefully keeps us from acting like arrogant know-it-alls.

TLDR; Time for a recap.

Intentional empathy sounds like this: “Even if empathy feels counter-intuitive, I can still get there with a stance of non-judgment and curiosity.”

A stance of non-judgment sounds like this: “Since I know that I have biases, I’m going to be on the lookout for any automatic judgments that may not be accurate or relevant.”

A stance of curiosity sounds like this: “Since I know that I don’t know everything, I’m going to ask as many questions as I can so that I can see the bigger picture.”

Once we settle into this stance, we’re ready to move on to actually doing the empathy. For now, I’ll leave you with the wise words of Adam Grant from his book, Think Again, “Thinking like a scientist involves more than just reacting with an open mind. It means being actively open-minded. It requires searching for reasons why we might be wrong—not for reasons why we must be right—and revising our views based on what we learn.”