> Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript
Clearly he hasn't frequented enough tech forums.
Keep your Identity Small (2009)
81–90 of 116 posts
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#82I don't know if I can quite express how wonderful it was to read this. I'm not so naive as to believe it's not because it lines up with my notions, and as said in the article (or implied) there's no sense in talking past your expertise. All I can say is that the Dunning-Kruger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) seems to be at play in most online discourse, and that certain subjects, especially in an environment of entitlement (i.e. everybody's opinion is "valid" - whatever that means).
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#83I 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.…
This reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's "Reality Tunnel" experiments. If you've not read him, I'd highly recommend his work - especially "Prometheus Rising".
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#84The trouble here is that the more you know about something, the more it must necessarily form part of your identity. I could otherwise dispense the most dispassionate (and apparently therefore excellent) advice on topics ranging from Micronesian politics to string theory.
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#85I loved this essay when it came out, and I still think it's pretty great. But I'm forced to acknowledge that a big reason I was on board with it is that the identities I was given to choose from when I was young didn't appeal to me.
And I'm forced to acknowledge that for most people, their identities do work and make them happy in ways I can only sort-of understand. And maybe they lower our society's level of epistemic virtue, but people may never let them go, and it's not obvious that we ought to try to convince them to beyond a certain point.
I like balioc's perspective here https://balioc.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/responsa/. The whole thing is good, but he responds to PG's essay specifically with:
"I could answer by saying that, in many circumstances, identity really is necessary for hedonic well-being. [...] the world isn’t set up to provide us with constant sources of utility, so it’s much better to have a constantly-accessible utility generator inside yourself, even if that generator requires some finicky maintenance."
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#86I’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…
I get "strong opinion" to mean not settling for middle ground just because there's an opposition or some pressure. And weakly held to mean it should be abandoned if new evidence makes it wrong.
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#87I 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…
...I think identity in this context is largely the "I am a" form. I'm a giggler is identity. I juggle, or even I am the juggler is not the same sort of a mark of Identity. So I'd say the advice is is avoid (or at.least recognize and minimize)) thinking in the "I am a" frame.
I agree the advice in the article is to avoid "I am a ..." but given that seems somewhat impossible and the advice is to avoid this construct in order to prevent a kind of 'dumbness' as described by the article, I was wondering if it would be sufficient to avoid 'non-verb-ifiable' nouns in order to achieve the desired outcome: prevention of dumbness. I should have made that aspect of my comment clearer.
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
What is his suggestion, though, exactly? For a waiter to not consider 'being a waiter' as part of his identity? If we're talking about reality, that strikes me as a fairly unrealistic ask, especially if it's all the waiter does. And I can only really speak from my personal experience. Having a diverse range of interests has given me a protective barrier that I didn't have when I was younger. When I was a teenager, fo…
> What is his suggestion, though, exactly? For a waiter to not consider 'being a waiter' as part of his identity? If we're talking about reality, that strikes me as a fairly unrealistic ask, especially if it's all the waiter does.
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#89> 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.
Hacker News is an exceptionally civilized forum. But even then: this is not a discussion about JavaScript or religion, this is a discussion about discussions about JavaScript or Religion. So one level of abstraction away, which probably helps avoiding the flame war.
Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)
#90Politics are interesting. Perhaps politicking wouldn't be necessary if we could determine with accuracy the results of policies before implementing them. For example, maybe this could be done by complex computer simulation in the future. Furthermore, policy might be synthesized by the same processes if it can be simulated.
Which then raises another interesting point: would democracy be less efficient and necessary if we could determine optimal policy for society before implementing it? Would we just vote on the desires of society rather than policies to get us there?