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

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#61

Post by barrkel »

I like to try on identities a bit like trying on clothes. If someone is making decisions based on identity, you'll find it hard to understand them, or empathize with their position if you can't imagine what their outlook is like. It's especially troubling if you think of people with different perspectives as being "other", alien in some way.

Most identities have positive things to commend them, as well as negatives. Frequently a set of identities mesh together into a consistent narrative of the world, such that you can't change people's mind on a single issue unless you can flip them on a whole bunch of related issues, or create a better narrative. These narratives are often backed by both ignorance and logical fallacies that cause evidence to be misinterpreted.

I think if you don't try out other identities, other world views, you're liable to get stuck in an identity by default, and just not be aware of how biased your perspective is.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#62

Post by grzm »

eevilspock wrote: post #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…

Note the title is "Keep your identity small", not "Reduce your identity to zero". While I think I can see what you're getting at, I'm not sure I follow the logic. Bear with me for a moment: In the case of slavery, I wouldn't want someone to consider themselves a slave, I'd want them to consider themselves a human being and expect to be treated as such. Similarly for anyone dealing with harassment or unjust marriage laws. These conditions aren't unjust because one is a slave or a woman or gay. They're unjust because you're a human, and the conditions are inhumane. A slave doesn't want to continue to be a slave; a woman doesn't want to have to put up with harassment because they're a woman; a gay man doesn't want to be treated differently because he's a gay man: they want to be treated fairly and justly because they're human.

I think one of the things Graham is pointing towards is finding what is common among people, rather than focussing on the differences. A couple of sentences that stood out to me when I read it were "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities." I read that as focussing on those topics in common.

None of this is guaranteed, of course. But I think it's a more constructive way forward than focussing on what divides people.

Would you expand on what aspects of the piece you took to supporting the conclusions and examples you provided above?

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#63

Post by incompatible »

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!

This is an online forum, and despite the mention of religion and Javascript it hasn't yet degenerated into an argument. It seems the rule has exceptions.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#64

Post by incompatible »

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…

With a weak identity you can just hop over to the winning side. I think a lot of polemic attacks over identity aren't aimed so much at the opposition, but at weak supporters to stop them defecting.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#65

Post by trevyn »

I came to a similar conclusion recently, and I believe that evolutionarily, the concept of identity originates from the biological drive to protect one's physical body. One then voluntarily expands or contracts one's sense of identity from there.

So I did some mental experiments. Temporarily reducing my identity to not include my physical body, bit by bit.

Then, what am I?

My consciousness.

What if I reduce it further?

I lose consciousness.

(But I get it back after I wake up.)

What if I try to lose the sense of identity while still remaining aware?

It wraps around and I become the universe. Am one with the universe.

It was an interesting journey.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#66

Post by madacoo »

I wonder if it would be sufficient to restrict nouns that you use to assert your identity to those which can be 'verbified': I am a juggler because I juggle; I am a programmer because I program; I am a writer because I write.

Those particular nouns seem to be inherently less likely to cause partisan behaviour that nouns that can't be as easily 'verbified': I am British because I Brit; I am not Christian because I don't Christ.

I suppose a simpler way of saying this would be to restrict your sense of identity to things you do over things you believe. Although I'm not at all certain that this would actually serve to avoid the kind of 'dumbness' the author describes.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#67

Post by platz »

How can you advocate for your own self-interest politically, if it is not connected to your identity?

How would you even decide what policies you want?

PG makes it seem like we could simply do politics by creating some ultimate utilitarian function. But then how do you decide what it counts as good?

In fact, there is no separating identity from politics, no matter how you try to obfuscate it.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#68

Post by yathern »

borplk wrote: post #23
yathern wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like what you're talking about is Pascals Wager[0] The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false. Therefore, any logical person ought to be a Christian, since the consequences of belief are net positive either way. Or so the thought goes. As a person of faith, I will say that this thought experiment is fairly f…

> The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false. That makes lots of assumptions about what God is and how he behaves.

Well I'm paraphrasing Pascal's Wager which is about the Christian God - and the options therein of being heaven or hell.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#69

Post by platz »

platz wrote: post #67

How can you advocate for your own self-interest politically, if it is not connected to your identity? How would you even decide what policies you want? PG makes it seem like we could simply do politics by creating some ultimate utilitarian function. But then how do you decide what it counts as good? In fact, there is no separating identity from politics, no matter how you try to obfuscate it.

Why the down votes? Please explain your reasoning.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#70

Post by hmwhy »

I was immediately reminded of a wiki page about enlightenment (Immanuel Kant) [0] after reading through the essay, which may an interesting additional reading to some. The English translation of the essay that the wiki page is based on can be found here [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answering_the_Question:_What_i...

[1] http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

Post reply on HN