Ultimately, I think this debate boils down to, does a person seek external validation and outside forces to form their identity or do they venture inward, ruminating and questioning preexisting beliefs that were impressed upon them. Not that a person should be a vacuum that is impenetrable from the outside, but if they are nothing more than a mirror reflecting cultural ideals or whatever group they're "supposed" to belong to, that's not much of a personal identity. It's a caricature.
Sounds a bit like external vs. internal locus of control.
Probably due to my narcissism, being in a foreign country doesn't really effect how I perceive myself, save the observation that the people around me and their customs are different. Because I am in their country, that doesn't threaten me and I instead find it interesting. I disagree that you can tell much about someone based on their nationality and ethnicity; there are a few assumptions one can make but not that many. I know that simply from being so radically different in my political orientation and musical interests to everyone around me, but fit in in other ways. Though, being different isn't something i relish, quite the contrary.
Your earlier posts present a different view, namely that nationality and ethnicity are of paramount importance in understanding someone and his/her place in the world. So which is it?
Now I am going to be controversial. To me, "Texan" is not a valid identity, because it has no biological element. Anyone can, potentially, take it on, therefore it isn't unique to any group of individuals. Only a select group of people - if anyone at all - can have any part of my identity, which automatically raises its value. This view will be controversial to Americans, but to persist, an identity must be grounded in biology and hence exclusive. Exclusivity is what makes your identity special on every level.
To me, the identities I have chosen are far more meaningful than those I was simply born into. The latter tell the superficialities of my life, the packaging; while the former tell about the "real me" inside. Of course inborn identities can take on greater significance if we also choose to pursue them, whether that be our ethnic heritage, or musical talent. On the other hand, failure to identify with some part of our inherited identity is not necessarily (and probably rarely) self-hatred. It is more likely simple indifference to one of the many things that has not captured our attention. Having brown hair is a relatively insignificant part of who I am, but I neither hate brunettes, nor envy blondes.
Whether you identify strongly with the group parts of your identity or not, they are still parts of who you are and have impacts on others.
This is true, largely because of the assumptions and prejudices of others. It behooves us to be aware of these, so we are not blindsided by unexpected reactions, but it says far more about those "impacted others" than about us.
If people had nothing that could distinguish them from each other (the left wing version of heaven), everyone would quickly fall into a state of depression and inertia.
Exactly which "left wing" groups favor making humans indistinguishable one from another? It probably takes an INTJ much older than you to realise a world where everyone is the same is a physical impossibility. Just take any relatively homogeneous ethnic or cultural population. You will find within it huge diversity in talents, interests, preferences, and personality, not to mention physical differences.
What you need to consider is that if anyone could become French, or Japanese, those cultures would quickly lose what makes them unique. These peoples' identity would be lost, perhaps forever. The Japanese are aware that a culture is the product of (and tied to) the people who created it and their descendants, and hence the latter needs to be preserved for the former to be. This is why they have such a tight immigration system.
Many professions, hobbies, sports, and other pursuits have distinct and readily identifiable cultures despite being open to broad ranges of inborn groups, so this argument doesn't hold water. Indeed, many people marry into ethnic groups, and then work to preserve that culture, along with their new family.
As for the OP:
How much does your sex/gender, national origin or race factor into your sense of identity? If you hypothetically woke up in a different body that is not in your current state, how much would it effect your self-perception and identity? Would your values drastically change? I suppose you could include class or socioeconomic status, but that would probably have the most profound effect on one's lifestyle.
If the only thing that changed was my physical body, my self-perception would change only to the degree that others reacted differently to me, which could be significant, depending on my new body and my environment.
I believe I've always identified myself more by my interests and aspirations than anything out of my control. If my gender or national origin was different, it may have a positive impact on my life (due to cultural values clashing with my personality). I think being a different race would have the biggest effect in a negative way, as a result of prejudices and the stigma attached to belonging to a minority. I've never had a strong desire to adopt a group identity. Even when participating in activities that I enjoy with people of similar interests, I have a certain aversion to assimilating into a defined association.
I agree with this for the most part. I suppose I don't so much assimilate into defined associations, as that would impy something about me changes, as I willingly identify with associations that are consistent with who I am and what I want out of life.
But it's a culture one can *become*.. which is a difficult thing to find for most people.
