Yet we cannot function without a sense of identity.
I'm not entirely certain that it is a question of "identity".
Certainly it is necessary to see oneself in relation to the outside world.
What we do, affects it.
What happens in it, affects us.
To understand this interplay is crucial to navigating the world with an "identity".
I'm not convinced that having an "identity", per-se, is necessary to navigate the outside world.
Identity:
"the fact of being who or what a person or thing is."
"the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is."
The first definition is only object designation.
The second definition seems to meet the criteria for what you are here calling "identity", but would seem to indicate "ego", or "personality", by your commentary.
It is a predictor, in a way, of the likely thoughts, words, or actions of an individual.
A way to organize them, in our lexicon of personalities.
A place from where predictions can be made concerning their behavior.
And, if we look more deeply, a place where we can recombine possible future events, and reactions, to temper our own actions to influence the other "identity" in a particular way, or cause a specific outcome or posture.
This, as far as I can see, is the only purpose or use, for having a "personality".
A "personality", or "ego", would seem only to exist to change perception(s) significantly enough to cause a change in physical reality, or the parameters for creating such, for the individual attempting to shape their experience by/with such a device.
(Did someone say "psychobabble"?)
I am aware, that my day to day existence is.
I am aware that I have very little control over what happens to me.
Therefore, most of life becomes adaptation to new circumstances, mostly those beyond our control.
It is at this point, that I percieve adherence to a "personality" as a self-imposed limitation.
The most distinguishing features, for me, of a "personality", aren't what the thing will allow, but what it will
not allow.
One of the fundamental features of a personality is that it determines courses of action.
The immediate prerequisite, it would seem, is to determine a motivation--- "What am I trying to achieve?"
By asking the question itself, we betray that what we are trying to achieve is the most favorable set of circumstances, usually, for ourselves.
I do not believe that it is necessary, nor even advisable, to have a (strongly defined) ego.
It is liberating, educational, and rewarding to practice non-attachment.
Where concern for individual "comforts" is supplanted by the awareness of others, and their needs.
I.E. to weigh needs regardless of "persona", and it's relation to self.
For instance, in practicing non-attachment, thus has it occurred:
I am hungry.
I am situated in a way that I can easily buy food.
I buy a sandwich from a street-vendor.
I continue on my way.
I encounter an individual making a statement of destitution or hunger.
(This may be a sign, change-cup, or a verbal request.)
I assess my hunger, and my ability to alleviate it.
I assess the probable ability of the one making the plea to do the same.
If I judge that there is greater need in the individual making the plea---
I give that person my sandwich.
I could justify keeping it by any number of measurements or mechanisms--- I need only come up with a mildly, loosely fashioned narrative to justify retaining ownership.
It is unfortunate, but it is easier to make such decisions, when like decisions have already been made.
And so it is, that "personalities" are given to wild swings, dependent upon perception.
Incidentally, they are self-directing and their direction often is very "me" oriented.
In the above example, I disconnected personal gain or loss, from the equation.
I put the food where it was needed more, in my judgement.
It appears to me that this is an ego-less thought-action.
Yet, personality seems to be a "possession" and platform by which so many define themselves.
Many choose a personality, and then conduct themselves from the limits of it.
This seems counterintuitive, to me.
It would seem far more logical to
post-pone, or refuse altogether, to "choose" a personality, and just "be".
Allow "personality" to be a default position, defined by what one is not, rather than choosing a personality to define who or what someone is---and
will be--- and hence dictate limitations to future interactions.
It seems to me that "personality" should exist with the oversight of logic, rather than logic existing with the oversight of "personality".
Two very different modes of existence.
---
And so, I am aware that the list of polar opposites that you have listed are all possible within the framework of the "personality" that is "me".
To conform even to proclivities, tendencies, is to take tools out of the toolbox, rather than putting them in, or adding them.
---
"Identity" is inversely correlated with freedom to act.
I don't like limitations.
But then, that's just "me".