Keep your Identity Small (2009)

I think when he talks about "identity" what he really means is unquestioning allegiances, preventing purely merit-based objective discussions on some issues. IOW when you have an angle in it, when you're in a discussion not to get to the truth of the matter, but to achieve certain goals you have, to influence others, to push them in a direction that is favorable to you (without being conscious of it, otherwise you're just a dishonest manipulator, and this is not about that).

Just wanted to be more precise about what this "identity" thing really means. I think though that you can have a "wider identity" and have "fruitful" i.e. truth-seeking merit-based discussions at the same time; you just have to be conscious - and honest - about it. So I'd dispute his implied drive that you mustn't "be" something (Communist, Christian, etc.). What is really called for is being cognizant and honest.

Taking being Communist as an example, this would mean that you're playing for the ultimate goal, not for the advancement of your party over others no matter what. Putting ideals over politicking.

Of course the core ideals is a much harder core. These core ideals are the true core of your being, there's no easy arguing about changing them.

I apologize if this all is trite and cliche.

And for the reason described in the essay: more people have identified either with it or against it.

Once being a JS programmer becomes a thing you are or aren't, people are arguing about themselves.

That's why when you argue with someone about one of these topics and you try to prove a certain point that does not fit ther line of thinking, you are effectively thwarting their identity. In their exes you make them less of a person. You take away a part of their identity. Nobody wants that.

Also related - the "backfire effect" - where challenging a person's core beliefs only entrenches them further. Nicely explained and illustrated here by The Oatmeal: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

.