This is why, when describing or introducing myself to others, I often avoid using the words "I am" at all. Compare:<p>"I'm a C++ software developer, computer graphics/desktop application programmer, and hobbyist game developer."<p>To:<p>"I work as a software developer. I have thorough experience with C++, particularly in computer graphics and desktop consumer applications, and I enjoy doing some game development as a hobby."<p>Which one of these people seems more flexible? More capable? More well-rounded?<p>This idea is powerful, because the more you internalize things like this as part of your identity, the more you limit yourself. You end up pigeonholing yourself, both in your own eyes and in the eyes of others. Describing myself with the second method also allows me to go on about other things I've done: how I have some experience with Python, Ruby, Clojure, Javascript, and even Prolog, how I've dabbled in AI, machine learning, signal processing, and web design, or even how, although I work as a software developer, I have an interest in the arts, like music and graphic design, and a broad background in many science and engineering disciplines. Not so with the first method—it comes across like I'm defining the absolute extent of my character.<p>And this doesn't apply just professionally, either. You start thinking yourself as "an X", and chances are your behaviour will align to what you think "an X" should do rather than what is right or best for you specifically. And "X" can be anything from "C++ developer" or "front-end web developer", to "liberal" or "conservative", to "atheist" or "Christian", to "American" or "European". Each one of these puts a straitjacket on your identity, and doing this can tangibly influence not only your self-image but also your actions.<p>Some further reading on that last note: <a href="http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/" rel="nofollow">http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin...</a>