Live data from Hacker News

Keep your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#51
That's basically the reason why I've never joined any political party or any other group (as an identity). Labels restrict thinking, and you can get pulled into knee-jerk reactions even if you are conscious of how that works.

Changing identity has a high cost for the organism (social connections, access to institutions, cognitive dissonance, existential crisis), which is why I think some people have those knee-jerk reactions. It's evolution at work.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#52
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!

I have some strange urge to mention Electron right now... ;)

I only remember having seen merit-based discussion about Electron.

Electron is good for developers because it saves them time and they can use their HTML and JS skills instead of having to learn another language.

Electron is bad for users because the resulting applications are way too memory and CPU hungry.

Both of those are merits. The question then becomes, is Electron worth it? Some say yes. Personally I don’t use any Electron software, but if I found an app made in Electron to which there was no non-electron alternative, or none that was as good in terms of utility or function or user-friendliness, I might have used it. First someone will have to make Electron apps run on FreeBSD though, which last time I checked they didn’t unfortunately but whatever.

Edit: Seems that some people are quite close to getting Electron to build and run on FreeBSD. https://github.com/electron/electron/issues/3797 Question is, will it be maintained in the future?

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#53
I like capturing this topic by making a distinction between nouns vs adjectives.

E.g. if someone is, say, "I am Polish" (or: "capitalist", "feminist", "Catholic", "socialist", "atheist", "gay" etc) and treats it an adjective describing their beliefs, tastes, etc it is up to an exploration and discussions (when evolution is accepted and does no harm to one's self-esteem). If someone else uses it to declare their identity, it makes it easy to make an entrenched view, with "us vs them", and in which change endangers one position (or, well, identity).

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#54

> 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.

The argument I made stems from a spiritual, non-dualistic perspective. While reading the blog post and writing the comment, I was thinking about how I think a lot about what is capital-t true. I usually find then if I would like to move towards what is capital-t true, dis-identifying and dropping labels is the start, individually and worldly. It's a lot like the pursuit of certainty by Descartes: What he did was lay everything down that he has known and throw away all which wasn’t certain, which later translated into: “Cogito ergo sum.” In similar form, I think ought to do the same: dis-identify with things, not have a reactive like or dislike with life, not mentally label every experience, etc. In other words, having labels and identifying with things is the opposite way towards where I would like to go, since that, I think, gets away from the core of what is capital-t true. If any of things I said above makes any sense.

Ultimately, I'm sorry, I should have gone into detail why I think my argument is the case. I'm also afraid I don't have a scientific study, it's really just what I have come to know at the moment, though I'm certain what I know at the moment will change, plus I do love counter-arguments since that's where we get somewhere really worth noting. I also should have not used the word 'dumber', but another, more compassionate word, I think.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#55
post #14

When in the history has this "boxing" of oneself started? Maybe other cultures don't surround the consciusness with so much fluff, like "I'm a valedictorian from the Yale class of 2010 and I work at Goldman and play polo". Or "I'm a Lenin follower and everyone should bow to international marxism". I think eg. the Chinese take on this is more about the family or something. Any pointers?

Plenty of cultures attach identities to their societies - Sunni/Shi’a, Hutu/Tutsi, etc. Other cultures don’t focus as much on their “work identity” as you described, but they fill their identities with others.

Source: lived overseas and been to 25+ countries.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#56
I'd argue for the opposite: growing your identity beyond a single thing. If someone sees themselves as a waiter and nothing else, they're more likely to feel injured by someone saying that a waiter is a dead-end job, because the majority of their identity just took a heavy blow. But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and a reader, they'll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#57
I make a distinction between positive/inclusive or negative/exclusive identity. While I certainly condone the statement "I'm not a murderer", I try to define myself in terms like "I value life". This gets tougher when certain positive constructs come with a lot of negative connotations. We can try to reclaim those words, emphasize that being a nerd is about devouring information and not about despising social contact, but sometimes its a lost cause and all we can do is come up with a new word. Another way of thinking of it is to be the union of identities, not the intersection. This heuristic can fail in many ways, but it's served me well so far.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#58
This is all very convenient if you happen to be of the dominant identity. Even if you don't consciously associate yourself with it, you benefit from it.

For those not of the dominant identity, to "not even to consider yourself an x" is a problem if you are an x and the problem you want to address is systemic unfairness toward x.

Imagine yourself a slave in 1850 being advised to not consider yourself a slave, or black, because you'd avoid useless discussions.

Imagine yourself a woman today being advised by HR to not consider yourself a woman or your experiences as one when discussing workplace discrimination or harassment.

Imagine yourself a gay man being advised to forget you are one when discussing laws restricting gay marriage.

You get the picture.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#59

I'd argue for the opposite: growing your identity beyond a single thing. If someone sees themselves as a waiter and nothing else, they're more likely to feel injured by someone saying that a waiter is a dead-end job, because the majority of their identity just took a heavy blow. But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and a reader, they'll be less affected when one of those things is a…

> But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and a reader, they'll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.

I think what you see in reality (at least these days) is that if ANY of the downsides to any of the identities are pointed out, you'll see people rush to have to defend it.

Also, I believe attaching your identity to being a waiter would be doing the opposite of what PG is suggesting here in the first place.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#60
post #10

.

I’m agnostic. I was raised in a relatively strict, traditional Roman Catholic family. At age 18, I embraced a strong atheist stance, influenced by the books by Hitchens and Dawkins being published around that time. Eventually my interest in this stance lessened. However, I dislike this “act of faith” line of reasoning and find it disingenuous. In the Roman Catholic tradition, believing is an act of faith. There isn’t…

Atheism is the belief that God was killed by the Big Bang.
Post reply on HN