Is there a difference between actually purging bad habits from yourself and keeping yourself out of situations where you expect to inevitably perform those bad habits? This seems to be a fine distinction, as the end result is presumably the same, but the long-term status internally is the difference in question.
If I identify a bad habit that I want to change in myself and I set out to alter my behaviour to reduce my personal tendencies towards performing this habit, that's an internal change affecting the content of my character. If I identify a situation where I know I'll most likely perform the bad habit and avoid the situation, is it the same type of self-improvement? Instead of combating the tendency to perform the bad habit, you're treating it as an inevitability that's instead being avoided indirectly.
Granted, it takes discipline to perform either bad habit aversion strategy, but are they the same? One could argue that by avoiding the situation, you're reducing the tendency over time, but who's to say if this bad habit reduction will last and withstand being in that situation again? Conversely, directly and specifically changing your behaviour by targeting this specific bad habit, while being the steeper mountain to climb, should result in the purge of the tendency and thus access to any situation because the bad habit is no longer a strong inevitability.
We can see which one is the more effective long-term strategy, in theory, given the process is successful. Though depending on which path you choose for the solution, the question still remains: are you really improving or are you still the same person that just happens to limit yourself in fear of yourself? You're changing the same behaviour in different ways - so are they the same? They are different means to a similar end, but are the ends identical?

Recent Comments