Small Steps Taken Often
Focused On WHO You Are Becoming
Gentle Self-Identity Updating
By Don Elium, MFT ©2025
A quiet yet deeply rooted change occurs when you work with your brain's natural ability to adapt, rather than fighting it and trying to force it with willpower.
The automatic reactions of Self-Identity don't change suddenly overnight—it's more like a path through the woods, with bushes, briars, and rocks that get flattened, pushed aside, and walked over. Over time, it becomes a trail: through repetition, step by step, until the brain recognizes it as the new route.
This is where the phrase "I am becoming a person who…" becomes neurologically powerful. It aligns with how prediction error correction works in the brain. Rather than demanding immediate perfection, it recognizes the gradual development of neural pathways.
The Neuroscience of Gentle Identity Updates: Small Steps Often
This approach's effectiveness stems from its alignment with your nervous system's natural tendency for energy efficiency and conservation: there is only so much energy available. The Self-Identity Process—Default Mode Network (DMN)—saves as much metabolic energy as possible by relying on familiar self-narrative patterns, which are partly experienced as habits because they once kept you safe, even though they now keep you stuck. When you say, "I am becoming a person who listens first instead of defending," you're addressing your brain's self-identity prediction systems in a way that doesn't trigger threat responses.
This distinction is significant. Large statements like "I never explain myself anymore" often fail because your nervous system doesn't trust sudden changes—they require too much energy to implement. The abruptness could trigger instability, as stability and meaningfulness patterns are central to a stable self-identity process. But when you identify a "becoming," your brain perceives this as a manageable adjustment rather than a dangerous disruption or a forced correction.
The Discovery That Unexpectedly Altered The Understanding of Habits
Dr. Phillippa Lally was frustrated. As a health psychology researcher at University College London, she continually faced the same issue in her clinical work: people would start healthy habits with enthusiasm, only to stop them within weeks, often feeling like failures. The popular advice everywhere was the same: "Just stick with it for 21 days and it becomes automatic."
But Lally noticed something troubling. Her patients who successfully maintained new behaviors—like daily exercise or medication routines—often described a much longer, more varied process. Some said it took them months to feel natural. Others insisted certain habits clicked within weeks. The 21-day rule didn’t match what she was seeing in real people's lives.
The Question That Started The Realistic Path To Habit Change
In 2009, Lally decided to investigate what happens when people develop new habits. "We were giving people advice based on a number that had no scientific foundation," she recalled. "I needed to know: How long does habit formation take, and why is there so much individual variation?"
Working with her colleagues at UCL's Health Behavior Research Centre, Lally designed a study that would track real people forming real habits in their actual daily lives—not in a laboratory setting, but in the messy, unpredictable world where habits need to survive.
The 254-Day, more or less, Journey—It Takes What It Takes.
Lally recruited 96 volunteers and asked each to choose one new healthy behavior they wanted to make automatic. The behaviors ranged from simple (drinking a bottle of water with lunch) to complex (running for 15 minutes before dinner). Every day for up to 254 days, participants logged into a website and reported whether they had performed their chosen behavior and how automatic it felt. What Lally discovered challenged everything the popular psychology world believed about habit formation.
The Surprising Results
"When I first analyzed the data, I thought there was an error," Lally remembered. The variation was enormous. One participant made drinking water with lunch completely automatic in just 18 days. Another took 254 days—over eight months—to make a simple stretching routine feel natural. Most participants clustered around 66 days, but the range was staggering.
Even more surprising: the complexity of the behavior dramatically affected the timeline. Simple habits, such as drinking water, are averaged at around 50 days. Exercise habits averaged over 90 days. Some complex behaviors never reached full automaticity within the study period.
The Plateau Discovery
Lally also uncovered something no one expected: habit strength doesn't continue growing indefinitely. Instead, it follows a curve that rises steeply for the first few weeks, then gradually levels off around day 66. After that point, additional repetitions provide minimal increases in automaticity.
"This explained why people often feel like they're ‘almost there' around two months," Lally noted. “They're hitting the plateau where the behavior is becoming genuinely automatic."
The Forgiveness Factor
Perhaps most reassuringly, Lally discovered that missing a single day—or even several days—didn’t restart the habit formation process. "People were terrified that one slip-up would erase all their progress," she said. "But the brain maintains developing neural pathways even with occasional gaps. Consistency helps, but perfectionism isn't required.”
Challenging the 21-Day Myth
Lally's research definitively debunked the 21-day rule. "That number came from observations about physical healing, not behavioral change," she explained. "We had been giving people completely unrealistic expectations, then wondering why they felt like failures when real change took longer."
The 21-day myth had created a cycle of disappointment: people would try for three weeks, see that the behavior still required effort, conclude they were doing something wrong, and abandon the attempt.
The Real-World Impact
Lally's findings revolutionized how behavioral scientists approach habit formation. Her 66-day average became the new benchmark, but more importantly, her research revealed why individual differences matter so much.
"The key insight wasn't just the number," Lally reflected. "It was understanding that everyone's brain works differently, and successful habit formation means working with your timeline rather than against arbitrary rules."
Her research revealed that factors such as stress levels, existing routines, neuroplasticity, and life circumstances all influence how quickly new behaviors become automatic. This explained why the same person might form one habit quickly while struggling with another for months.
The Continuing Mystery
Even today, Lally continues researching the mechanisms behind habit formation. "We know the average timeline now, but we're still discovering why some people's brains adapt faster than others," she says. "What we've learned is that sustainable behavior change is much more complex—and much more forgiving—than anyone realized."
The Personal Revolution
For Lally herself, the research altered her approach to behavior change. "I stopped expecting immediate automaticity and started appreciating the gradual process," she said. "When I know something might take 100 days to feel natural, I can be patient with myself instead of feeling frustrated at day 30."
Her discovery gave millions of people permission to take the time their brains need for lasting change, rather than fighting against unrealistic expectations based on popular mythology.
Today, Lally's 66-day finding is cited in neuroscience research, clinical psychology, and behavioral economics. But for her, the most meaningful impact remains personal: "Every week, I hear from people who say this research helped them succeed with changes they'd been struggling with for years. They finally understood it wasn't about willpower—it was about working with their brain's natural timeline."
Dr. Philippa Lally's groundbreaking research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, continues to influence our understanding of sustainable behavior change.*
Therefore, research on habit formation shows significant, or more accurately, HUGE variation. Dr. Phillippa Lally's UCL study (2009) found that it takes an average of 66 days to form a new habit, with a range of 18 to 254 days depending on the complexity of the behavior and individual differences.
Wide Range Of Factors:
• Simple habits (drinking water, taking vitamins): 18-66 days
• Complex habits (exercise routines, meditation): 66-254 days
• Average of 66 days across all habit types
Important Considerations:
• The "21-day myth" lacks scientific support
• Individual variation is significant.
• Habit complexity significantly impacts the timeline
• Missing occasional days doesn't restart the process.
• Plateau effect: Most habit strength builds in the first 66 days and then plateaus.
This research supports the "small steps taken often" approach and explains why the prediction-error correction statement prompt, "I am becoming a person who…", is effective. It recognizes the timeline required for neural pathway development, rather than promising quick, unrealistic changes.
The 66-day average serves as a reminder that change will occur later rather than sooner, encouraging us to work with the brain's natural adaptation processes rather than against them. However, an average is not you. The reality for each person is that it will take whatever your systems need you to take, so setting a number is only a guess. What is actually needed and happens will reveal to you what will be required of you.
Examples: Prediction Error Correction in Practice
Rachel's Energy-Aware Approach: Rachel's habit was to spiral into over-explaining whenever her partner expressed frustration. After years of being falsely accused of things she didn't do as a child, her body responded to disappointment as if it were a courtroom. Rather than trying to eliminate her defensiveness overnight, she started with one practice that honored her personal energy budget. Upon rising, she would say out loud, while alone, the new forecast state she constructed after taking a deeper look at her habit of defensiveness: “I am becoming a person who pauses and listens before responding.” She added 5 seconds to her pause as a new action to practice with her new prediction-error correction. Before brushing her teeth, she looked in the mirror and whispered: “I am becoming a person who pauses and listens before responding.” When her partner looked upset, she took one breath and remained silent for five seconds. She whispered to herself, “I am becoming a person who pauses and listens before responding.”
This 66-day micro-intervention adaptive practice gradually became more automatic because it required minimal energy while creating space for her self-identity prediction systems to update. With practice, those seconds stretched into moments of presence, and her nervous system began to learn that safety could coexist with someone else's upset feelings.
Dev’s Pattern Recognition: Dev, a high school teacher, struggled with predictive automatic distrust responses. A sarcastic comment or delayed text would immediately trigger his threat-detection systems. Instead of trying to eliminate distrust, he began working with his brain's pattern recognition in a different way. Every morning, once at lunch and before bed, with pen and paper, not on his phone, his action was to write slowly one line then whisper it to himself slow as he put his Han on his heart: “I am becoming a person who pauses and gathers information before concluding.“ for 24 hrs, for 66 days, checking off each day in bed on his calendar.
He wasn’t trying to override his protective instincts—he was training his system to create space between trigger and response. After three months, he noticed his autonomic nervous system activated less quickly. Trust, for him, became less about feeling safe and more about developing the capacity to hold uncertainty without collapsing into old, predictable patterns, and focusing on information gathering rather than habitual distrust. This was later adapted further into another predictive update, and he coined the phrase "hope with evidence" for a more positive view of a situation where trust had been broken.
Couples And Shared (Expectation) Prediction Updates
Even in relationship concerns, this approach to identity development can reshape a relational-identity predictive system. Janet and Roger, both quick to interrupt and correct each other, experienced classic System-1 processing during conflicts, which often leads to broad, sweeping statements with little accuracy. In therapy, they agreed on an assignment that matched their relationship energy budget: to write and speak their “becoming” statements before difficult conversations. It was very awkward; they each admitted it sounded too simple and made them feel dumb, but they did it anyway with smiles. With practice, their nervous systems softened, and they noticed that tough conversations often remained stiff, requiring time-outs. However, they learned to call time-outs earlier and follow through on them, which helped them feel safer emotionally when challenging life situations arose at home and work.
Janet's was: "I am becoming a person who lets silence do its work before I jump in.”
Roger's was: “I am becoming a person who hears pain without adding questions requiring proof.”
Within 66 days, their arguments often changed—not because they had resolved their core issues, but because their self-identity predictions updated in real-time. This shift enabled them to access Emotional Regulation and Identity Flexibility with greater consistency.
Why This Approach Can Help: The Neuroscience of Safety
The brain is more likely to revise prediction patterns when it recognizes that we are working within our limitations rather than fighting them. The identity phrase “I am becoming a person who…" works because it reflects the actual process of neural adaptation: it’s gradual, specific, and occurs in relationships—with yourself, with others, and with present-moment experience. Sixty-six days is not a fixed timeframe, but a good starting point to support the emergence of new neural pathways.
Big leaps often trigger your system's energy conservation protocols, causing you to revert to familiar patterns. However, small, repeated steps build the stability that allows your nervous system to trust that change is possible without depleting your energy reserves.
When this trust develops, you’re no longer performing a new identity or forcing yourself to be different. The updated prediction patterns have become integrated into your automatic functioning—you're living from your evolved capacity rather than striving toward it.
This is the essence of the Adaptive Identity Model [A•I•M] by Don Elium, MFT: self-identity adaptation happens most effectively when we work with our brain's energy efficiency and conservation-oriented systems rather than against them. The “becoming” framework offers a neurologically informed pathway for a gradual and more embodied evolution of self-identity that adapts to what is needed, now.
—————-
DIGGING DEEPER
Choose the best answer for each question. Each question gives you feedback about your understanding of the basic content of this article.
1. Neural Pathway Development: How does self-identity change occur in the brain?
It happens suddenly, overnight, when you decide to be different.
It's like a path through the woods that gets flattened, pushed aside, and walked over until it becomes a trail through repetition.
Major life events or crises are often required to trigger transformation.
It depends entirely on willpower and determination.
2. The “I'm Becoming" Framework: Why is the phrase "I am becoming a person who..." neurologically influential according to the article?
It creates immediate perfection in behavior patterns.
It aligns with how prediction error correction works in the brain and recognizes the gradual development of neural pathways.
It eliminates the need for energy conservation in the brain.
It forces the nervous system to change quickly
3. Energy Conservation and Identity: Why does the Default Mode Network (DMN) rely on familiar self-narrative patterns?
To create more exciting and varied experiences
To save as much metabolic energy as possible by relying on patterns that once kept you safe
To ensure you never make mistakes in relationships
To help you win arguments with others
4. Dr. Lally's Research Timeline: Based on Dr. Phillippa Lally's UCL study mentioned in the article, what was the actual range for habit formation?
21 days for all habits, regardless of complexity.
30-45 days with no individual variation
18 to 254 days, depending on behavior complexity and individual differences
Exactly 66 days for every person and every habit
5. Habit Complexity Impact: According to Dr. Lally's research findings, as described in the article, how does behavior complexity affect habit formation timelines?
All habits took precisely the same amount of time regardless of complexity
Simple habits like drinking water averaged around 50 days, while exercise habits averaged over 90 days
Complex behaviors always formed faster than simple ones.
Complexity had no measurable impact on the speed of habit formation.
6. The Plateau Discovery: What did Dr. Lally discover about habit strength development over time?
Habit strength continues growing indefinitely with more repetitions.
Habits become weaker after the first month of practice.
Habit strength follows a curve that rises steeply for the first few weeks, then gradually levels off around day 66.
Habit strength develops in a linear fashion over time.
7. Missing Days' Impact: According to Dr. Lally's research, as described in the article, what happens when you miss a single day or even several days of habit practice?
You must restart the entire habit formation process from day one.
The brain maintains developing neural pathways even with occasional gaps, and missing days don't restart the process.
Missing even one day permanently damages the neural pathways.
You lose 50% of your progress for each day missed
8. Energy Budget and Large Changes: Why do large statements like "I never explain myself anymore" often fail, according to the article?
They sound too confident and arrogant to others.
They require too much energy to implement, and your nervous system doesn't trust sudden changes that could trigger instability.
They are grammatically incorrect statements.
They focus too much on positive outcomes.
9. The 21-Day Myth Origins: Where did the popular 21-day habit rule originate?
From Dr. Lally's scientific research at University College London
From observations about physical healing, not behavioral change
From ancient wisdom traditions about personal transformation
From corporate training programs designed for workplace efficiency
10. Nervous System Safety and Change: According to the article's explanation of why the "becoming" framework works, when is the brain more likely to revise prediction patterns?
When it faces major threats or crises that demand immediate change
When it recognizes that we are working within our limitations rather than fighting them
When it receives rewards for making quick transformations
When it is forced to change through external pressure
Answer Key
Question 1: Answer B Why B is correct: The article explicitly states: "The automatic reactions of Self-Identity don't change suddenly overnight—it's more like a path through the woods, with bushes, briars, and rocks that get flattened, pushed aside, and walked over. Over time, it becomes a trail: through repetition, step by step, until the brain recognizes it as the new route."
Why others are wrong:
A contradicts the article's emphasis on gradual change
C represents a transformation requiring crisis, which opposes AIM principles
D focuses on willpower rather than working with neural adaptation
Question 2: Answer B Why B is correct: The article states, "This is where the phrase 'I am becoming a person who…' becomes neurologically powerful. It aligns with how prediction error correction works in the brain. Rather than demanding immediate perfection, it recognizes the gradual development of neural pathways."
Why others are wrong:
A contradicts the gradual nature emphasized in AIM
C misrepresents the brain's energy conservation needs
D opposes the gentle, gradual approach described
Question 3: Answer B Why B is correct: The article explains: "The Self-Identity Process—Default Mode Network (DMN)—saves as much metabolic energy as possible by relying on familiar self-narrative patterns, which are partly experienced as habits because they once kept you safe, even though they now keep you stuck."
Why others are wrong:
A contradicts energy conservation principles
C represents perfectionist thinking, opposed to AIM
D focuses on competitive rather than adaptive functions
Question 4: Answer C Why C is correct: The article states: "The variation was enormous. One participant made drinking water with lunch completely automatic in just 18 days. Another took 254 days—over eight months—to make a simple stretching routine feel natural."
Why others are wrong:
A represents the debunked 21-day myth specifically challenged in the article
B doesn't match the "enormous variation" described
D misrepresents the average as a fixed rule for everyone
Question 5: Answer B Why B is correct: The article explicitly states: "Even more surprising: the complexity of the behavior dramatically affected the timeline. Simple habits, such as drinking water, are averaged at around 50 days. Exercise habits averaged over 90 days."
Why others are wrong:
A contradicts the "dramatic" complexity effect described
C reverses the actual finding
D denies the clear complexity impact found in the research
Question 6: Answer C Why C is correct: The article states, "Lally also uncovered something no one expected: habit strength doesn't continue growing indefinitely. Instead, it follows a curve that rises steeply for the first few weeks, then gradually levels off around day 66."
Why others are wrong:
A contradicts the plateau discovery
B suggests weakness rather than plateau
D misrepresents the curve pattern described
Question 7: Answer B Why B is correct: The article explains: "Perhaps most reassuringly, Lally discovered that missing a single day—or even several days—didn't restart the habit formation process... But the brain maintains developing neural pathways even with occasional gaps."
Why others are wrong:
A represents the perfectionist myth the research debunked
C exaggerates the impact beyond what research showed
D creates a mathematical penalty not supported by findings
Question 8: Answer B Why B is correct: The article states: "Large statements like 'I never explain myself anymore' often fail because your nervous system doesn't trust sudden changes—they require too much energy to implement. The abruptness could trigger instability."
Why others are wrong:
A focuses on social rather than neurological factors
C is irrelevant to the neurological explanation provided
D misrepresents the energy-based reasoning given
Question 9: Answer B Why B is correct: The article explicitly states, "That number came from observations about physical healing, not behavioral change," when discussing the 21-day myth's origins.
Why others are wrong:
A contradicts Lally's role in debunking rather than creating the myth
C and D represent speculation not mentioned in the article
Question 10: Answer B Why B is correct: The article concludes: "The brain is more likely to revise prediction patterns when it recognizes that we are working within our limitations rather than fighting them."
Why others are wrong:
A contradicts the safety-based approach described
C focuses on external rewards rather than internal recognition
D represents force rather than collaboration with the nervous system
Scoring Guide
9-10 correct: Excellent understanding of AIM habit formation principles
7-8 correct: Good grasp of neurological foundations with minor gaps
5-6 correct: Basic understanding; review energy conservation concepts
Below 5: Revisit the article focusing on the brain's natural adaptation processes
—————————-
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER
ENDNOTES
Small Steps Taken Often:
Focused On WHO You Are Becoming
Neurological Support for Identity Adaptation and Habit Formation
The neurological foundations described in this article—gradual identity change, energy conservation through familiar patterns, and the 66-day habit formation timeline—are supported by current neuroscience research across multiple domains, including predictive processing, habit formation, neural plasticity, and self-identity construction within the Default Mode Network (DMN).
1. Gradual Neural Pathway Development
Evidence Source: The article's description of identity change as "a path through the woods, with bushes, briars, and rocks that get flattened, pushed aside, and walked over" reflects established principles of neural plasticity and habit formation.
Hebbian plasticity ("cells that fire together wire together") explains how repeated behavioral patterns become automatic through the strengthening of synaptic connections.
Basal ganglia and cerebellar involvement in transforming conscious effort into automatic motor and behavioral routines supports the gradual nature of habit formation described.
Neuroeconomics research suggests that the brain conserves metabolic energy by transitioning from flexible decision-making (prefrontal cortex) to automated patterning (habit circuits) once new patterns become sufficiently reliable.
Key researchers: Doyon & Benali (2005); Graybiel (2008); Smith & Graybiel (2016); Duhigg (2012)
2. Prediction Error Correction and "I Am Becoming" Framework
Evidence Source: The article's emphasis on the "I am becoming a person who..." phrase aligns with the concept of prediction error correction, which reflects the current understanding of predictive processing in the brain.
Predictive processing theory illustrates how the brain continually generates predictions about future states and updates these predictions in response to new information.
Default Mode Network (DMN) research shows how self-referential thinking and identity construction occur through predictive models maintained by the DMN.
Identity flexibility research indicates that gradual identity updates are more neurologically sustainable than sudden, dramatic changes.
Key researchers: Friston (2010); Barrett & Simmons (2015); Buckner et al. (2008); Andrews-Hanna (2012)
3. Dr. Phillippa Lally's Habit Formation Research
Primary Source: Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H., Potts, H. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998-1009.
Research Details:
96 participants tracked habit formation for up to 254 days
Range of habit automaticity: 18 to 254 days
Average time to plateau: 66 days
Simple habits (e.g., drinking water): averaged around 50 days
Complex habits (e.g., exercise routines): averaged over 90 days
Missing single days or several days did not restart the habit formation process
Supporting Research:
Wood & Neal (2007) on context-dependent automaticity
Gardner et al. (2012) on habit formation interventions
Verplanken & Aarts (1999) on habit strength measurement
4. Energy Conservation and Default Mode Network Function
Evidence Source: The article's description of the DMN saving metabolic energy through familiar self-narrative patterns aligns with established research on brain energy consumption and the function of the default network.
Brain energy consumption: The brain utilizes approximately 20% of the body's total energy, despite comprising only 2% of the body's weight, making energy efficiency crucial for neural function.
DMN energy efficiency: Research indicates that the Default Mode Network (DMN) maintains energy-efficient patterns of self-referential thinking and narrative construction.
Metabolic cost of cognitive control: Studies demonstrate that effortful cognitive control requires significant metabolic resources, supporting the brain's preference for automated patterns.
Key researchers: Raichle (2015); Buckner et al. (2008); Shenhav et al. (2017); Kurzban et al. (2013)
5. Nervous System Safety and Gradual Change
Evidence Source: The article's explanation of why large sudden changes trigger nervous system resistance reflects research on threat detection and safety processing.
Research on the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) reveals how this region monitors for prediction errors and potential threats to established patterns.
Polyvagal theory (Porges, 2011) explains how the nervous system evaluates safety and responds to perceived threats to stability.
Research on stress response systems indicates that sudden changes can activate threat-detection networks, making gradual approaches more neurologically acceptable.
Key researchers: Porges (2011); Critchley & Harrison (2013); Menon & Uddin (2010)
6. Identity Flexibility and System-1 vs System-2 Processing
Evidence Source: The article references energy-dependent thinking systems, which aligns with research on dual-process theory.
System-1 and System-2 processing (Kahneman, 2011) explains how energy depletion affects cognitive processing, supporting the article's emphasis on energy-aware approaches.
Cognitive load research demonstrates how mental fatigue impairs flexible thinking and identity adaptation.
Executive function and identity studies demonstrate how the prefrontal cortex's energy availability affects identity flexibility and behavioral change capacity.
Key researchers: Kahneman (2011); Baumeister & Vohs (2007); Diamond (2013)
7. The 21-Day Myth Origins
Historical Context: The article correctly identifies that the 21-day rule originated from observations about physical healing rather than behavioral change.
Dr. Maxwell Maltz (1960) in "Psycho-Cybernetics" noted that amputees typically took about 21 days to adjust to phantom limb sensations, a phenomenon later misapplied to the concept of habit formation.
A popular psychological misinterpretation led to the widespread adoption of the 21-day rule without scientific validation for behavioral change.
Lally's research (2010) definitively challenged this myth, using empirical data to show much longer and more variable timelines.
——————-
Note on AIM Framework Development
Humans adapt to what is happening, eventually. Thousands and thousands and thousands of years, the process is still the same, but the content is different.
A shift happens when the energy cost of maintaining an out-of-date expectation (prediction) of yourself and your partner, is HIGHER than updating to a fresh new look, point of view, of yourself and your partner.
This is the heart of A•I•M-Adaptive Identity Model —-we don’t really change our deeply rooted view point, subconsciously, of our situation and “who we are”, until we can’t literally “take it anymore.” And then the surprisingly reliable process of self-identity adaptation (the NEXT version of you) is activated.
This article presents concepts from the Adaptive Identity Model (A•I•M) currently under development by Don Elium, MFT. While the individual neurological principles cited have established research support, the specific integration and clinical applications within the AIM framework represent novel therapeutic approaches based on established neuroscience principles.
The five-level energy cascade system referenced in AIM (Physical Regulation, Emotional Regulation, Identity Flexibility, and Shared Meaning, Presence) draws on established research in these areas; however, specific metabolic measurements for this integrated model are not yet available in the current research literature.
Clinical Applications Disclaimer: The therapeutic applications described represent clinical observations and should not be used as a substitute for professional mental health treatment. Individuals experiencing significant mental health concerns should consult with qualified mental health professionals.