We currently face a problem in the field of learning and instructional design and technology (LIDT). We have an important contribution to offer towards what Beckwith (1988) called “the transformation of learners and . . . learning” (p. 18). However, in pursuit of this mission, we have become too fixated on being designers and applying the methods of design thinking. As valuable as design has been for our field, it’s ultimately too narrow an approach to help us have the impact we desire because it overemphasizes the importance of the products and services we create. To be more influential, we need approaches that focus our efforts on nurturing people’s “intrinsic talents and capacities” that are ultimately outside of our ability to manage and control (Thomson, 2005, p. 158; see also Biesta, 2013). Tying ourselves to design will not accomplish this, so we need to cultivate an identity of our own—an identity centered on what Dunne (1997) called the character and dispositions of “practical judgment” (p. 160). It is understandable why LIDT professionals would want to define themselves as designers. Design is fashionable. It provides the esteem that our field so often seems to desire. But the label design does not need to be attached to every method of attempting to improve the human condition. Design is also not the only way to enact the dispositions and character of practical judgment, which is the real core on which our field should focus. We should be in conversation with every field that exhibits such virtues, and not only design. It is true that an expanded vision for LIDT’s purpose and practice will include some design activities. But if we only design, we will be limited in the types of influence we have. So, our practices should also include influences from other fields as well, remixed into a unique identity that reflects our primary focus on practical judgment and in service of our distinctive purpose.