Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#41

Post by tensor_rank_0 »

7dare wrote: post #36
stareatgoats wrote: post #16

Good advice, albeit hard to accomplish. Identity is a core part of political party formation, at least in Europe (together with self-interest and ideology). No doubt it has an important role in marketing as well. I don't see these forces giving up on pulling the identity lever any time soon, it seems to gain importance if anything. However, perceived identity coupled with a sense of oppression, exceptionalism and/or…

But apparently fear of extinction doesn't lead people to leave their cars at home or to waste less... Seems like the only reactions these fears cause are misguided and radical ones.

there is a prisoner's dilemma type of effect here where, when other people are "defecting" (wasting fossil fuels and packaging), it's rational for the individual to defect as well.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#42

Post by duncanawoods »

js2 wrote: post #32

I’m reminded of “Strong Opinons, Weakly Held”: I’ve been pretty obsessed about the difference between smart people and wise people for years. I tried to write a book called “The Attitude of Wisdom” a couple times. And the virtues of wise people – those who have the courage to act on their knowledge, but the humility to doubt what they know – is one of the main themes in Hard Facts. We show how leaders including Xerox…

I've always been troubled by this because it seems to excuse poor behaviour i.e.

- "strong opinion" - the opinion is asserted aggressively and without tact

- "weakly held" - there is little justification for the opinion and it will be abandoned under pressure and on a whim

Sutton seems to want Strong to mean something about "attracting energy" as if Strong means "intentionally provocative" but it really isn't clear to me. I prefer "reasoned opinions presented thoughtfully" but then I'm British so... eh.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#43

Post by dwaltrip »

duncanawoods wrote: post #42
js2 wrote: post #32

I’m reminded of “Strong Opinons, Weakly Held”: I’ve been pretty obsessed about the difference between smart people and wise people for years. I tried to write a book called “The Attitude of Wisdom” a couple times. And the virtues of wise people – those who have the courage to act on their knowledge, but the humility to doubt what they know – is one of the main themes in Hard Facts. We show how leaders including Xerox…

I've always been troubled by this because it seems to excuse poor behaviour i.e. - "strong opinion" - the opinion is asserted aggressively and without tact - "weakly held" - there is little justification for the opinion and it will be abandoned under pressure and on a whim Sutton seems to want Strong to mean something about "attracting energy" as if Strong means "intentionally provocative" but it really isn't clear t…

My interpretation: "well-reasoned beliefs that are acted on strongly but easily discarded when appropriate".

If a belief or idea isn't well-reasoned or doesn't have strong backing then it should be held weakly and also _not_ acted on (neither in the affirmative nor vice versa).

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#44

Post by [deleted] »

jxub wrote: post #12
tendicular wrote: post #2

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…

You did good for pointing that out. Having formless, warm and fuzzy opinions adds little to the table, and makes for rather boring conversation.

[deleted]

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#46

Post by madez »

adjkant wrote: post #3

> As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums? Javascript has aged up I think!

Richard Stallman is warning of the dangers of JavaScript since at least 2009 [0]. That is about 9 years ago.

[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/324835/

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#47

Post by 2aa07e2 »

dang wrote: post #4
adjkant wrote: post #3

> As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums? Javascript has aged up I think!

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.

Being a well rounded programmer though means you can talk about the tools, not blame the people who use them.

A virtue of open-mindness is that you can respectfully listen to opinions of others and empathize with them. Having the urge to advise or "mentor" somebody who hasn't really asked you or is not your child is futile.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#48

Post by DonGateley »

bernardino wrote: post #45

> The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. I argue the more labels you have for not only yourself but for the world you experience, the dumber they make you.

If you believe your argument then you must find scientific study and discovery an exercise in making one dumber.

I'm afraid I find your argument to be a defense of ignorance.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#49

Post by bcoates »

DonGateley wrote: post #48
bernardino wrote: post #45

> The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. I argue the more labels you have for not only yourself but for the world you experience, the dumber they make you.

If you believe your argument then you must find scientific study and discovery an exercise in making one dumber. I'm afraid I find your argument to be a defense of ignorance.

Science is about destroying labels, it's a systematic process for declaring that entities do not exist.

Ignorance of things that aren't actually true is a virtue!

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#50

Post by alexpetralia »

tendicular wrote: post #2

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…

I always find it interesting how some of the beliefs that form the core of our identity are actually ones we have investigated least rigorously (eg. political affiliation, religious denomination, etc.). We are much more likely to dissect and reject new ideas that do not benefit from this 'first-mover advantage' than question the ones with which we were endowed.

I write about this somewhat here: https://alexpetralia.github.io/epistemology/2018/02/22/your-...

Post reply on HN