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 methods of action rather than specific ideological boundaries. Just make sure remove as much identity as possible when selecting identity, since remnants of your previous identity can have substantial impact on what you choose your next one to be.
(Of course frameworks and values, aren't completely severed from identities, and shouldn't be treated as such. They are however, better than identities themselves, and can be better for incremental change in the general direction of good.)
Periodic review of your identity seems to be a good idea, since those boundaries are very malleable, and change often. It may be the case that when you first adopted an identity, it was aligned to your values, but has since become something that might not be as effective (as another identity, or completely dropping that identity).
This so far has only covered one's private identity, and how they explore ideas privately. When conveying ideas publicly, one has to take a significantly different approach to identity. I think that having two different layers of identity would be helpful. The inner layer would be your private identity, where most is stripped away in the name of removing bias. The outer layer would be your public identity, which still attempts to be aligned with your values, but has more identities in the name of being trustworthy/worth listening to/relatable etc.
Most people accept identities uncritically, usually from being given them, or accepting the rest of an identity with the one part they agree with. Identities are incredibly powerful tools, and we cannot passively let them happen to us. We must be selective of what we identify with, and evaluate it as its definition changes.
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 methods of action rather than specific ideological boundaries. Just make sure remove as much identity as possible when selecting identity, since remnants of your previous identity can have substantial impact on what you choose your next one to be.
(Of course frameworks and values, aren't completely severed from identities, and shouldn't be treated as such. They are however, better than identities themselves, and can be better for incremental change in the general direction of good.)
Periodic review of your identity seems to be a good idea, since those boundaries are very malleable, and change often. It may be the case that when you first adopted an identity, it was aligned to your values, but has since become something that might not be as effective (as another identity, or completely dropping that identity).
This so far has only covered one's private identity, and how they explore ideas privately. When conveying ideas publicly, one has to take a significantly different approach to identity. I think that having two different layers of identity would be helpful. The inner layer would be your private identity, where most is stripped away in the name of removing bias. The outer layer would be your public identity, which still attempts to be aligned with your values, but has more identities in the name of being trustworthy/worth listening to/relatable etc.
Most people accept identities uncritically, usually from being given them, or accepting the rest of an identity with the one part they agree with. Identities are incredibly powerful tools, and we cannot passively let them happen to us. We must be selective of what we identify with, and evaluate it as its definition changes.