I think pg is using the word identity differently than you (or Jung) here. He doesn't attempt to explain the source of the "strong convictions" that drive polit

I think pg is using the word identity differently than you (or Jung) here. He doesn't attempt to explain the source of the "strong convictions" that drive political or religious beliefs. He simply observes the connection between the case where people think of themselves as a certain type of person and consequently will defend the associated beliefs regardless of evidence. So there's something about peoples minds that makes it costly for them to accept certain facts. For a long time now, professing a certain belief with conviction has been a way of associating yourself with a certain group has had and continues to have direct implications on a person's physical well-being. Given acting is hard and cognitive-dissonance is nasty, actually adopting the belief makes sense. A more precise way express the essay's thrust might be "don't get attached to your beliefs."