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

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#91

Post by tvanantwerp »

jameslk wrote: post #90

Politics 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…

I work at a think tank. I don't think any of the models used by any policy experts are at a level where such simulation is possible. We can't predict the weather more than about a week out, and that's just a physical system--policies depend on quirky humans with lots of weird incentives and preferences that are difficult to predict. Modeling can let you make educated guesses at best.

Of course, plenty of partisans have an interest in producing models that spit out results that just so happen to show what they already believed (e.g., Tobacco Institute), and politicians will cite those results with the same regularity as more rigorous work. Without expertise in the matter, it can be hard to find any given model's weak points; and they all have weak points.

As for voting for desired outcomes rather than desired policies: I'm pretty sure this is what most people are doing already. Lots of political pressure all around have your cake and eat it too. Sadly, I've never seen any policy that could solve a problem like that--too many trade-offs in real life.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#92

Post by meganibla »

A useful Corollary being that identity politics, in another words convincing people to identify with increasingly smaller and more specific groups, and getting them to fight amongst themselves, in other words trying to increase their identities to include some more things, is the perfect way to keep people from thinking clearly about real issues. A useful way to keep the population on the back foot in a democracy keep them fighting about emotive issues rather than thinking clearly about substantial one, and divide the market into small sections to make it easier to direct messaging to appeal for votes.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#93

Post by decasia »

mirimir wrote: post #76

I do my best to avoid believing in anything. That is, I have working hypotheses, more or less well-tested, but always open to revision based on new data. I do have principles and values that are essentially freely chosen. But even those are subject to revision. I strive for what works. That approach rather precludes religion. Because most religions are explicitly untestable.

I think the problem is that it's logistically impossible to empirically test all your working hypotheses. For example, my working hypothesis is that Darwinian evolution is a true theory about the development of life on this planet. But as I'm not a biologist, I don't really have the skills to empirically test my hypothesis; I just trust that other people have done this and are doing a good job. Similarly, I believe reports that there are as many as 10^22 stars in the universe, but I won't test that either because I'm not an astronomer and I generally trust astronomers...

In other words, I think there is an intermediate category that deserves attention:

1) Beliefs that you refuse to revise 2) Beliefs that you could revise in theory but probably never will in practice (for lack of expertise, resources, etc) 3) Beliefs that you actively try to develop

We are limited in our beliefs by our material capacities for inquiry, sadly.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#94

Post by mirimir »

decasia wrote: post #93
mirimir wrote: post #76

I do my best to avoid believing in anything. That is, I have working hypotheses, more or less well-tested, but always open to revision based on new data. I do have principles and values that are essentially freely chosen. But even those are subject to revision. I strive for what works. That approach rather precludes religion. Because most religions are explicitly untestable.

I think the problem is that it's logistically impossible to empirically test all your working hypotheses. For example, my working hypothesis is that Darwinian evolution is a true theory about the development of life on this planet. But as I'm not a biologist, I don't really have the skills to empirically test my hypothesis; I just trust that other people have done this and are doing a good job. Similarly, I believe r…

Yes, of course. But none of that stuff that I'll never test is a belief. It's all provisional. I'm also prone to decline to have an opinion, admitting that I'm not qualified.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#96

Post by tonyedgecombe »

jameslk wrote: post #90

Politics 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…

A previous government in the UK spoke a lot about evidence based policy, in reality it was evidence based policy that also happened to match their ideological outlook.

Perhaps our future AI overlords will have a different approach.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#97

Post by rgun »

The book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt explores similar concepts.

It is an extremely interesting book on moral psychology. (YC 2017 Summer Reading List)

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#98

Post by tendicular »

walterbell wrote: post #27
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…

When someone self-identifies as a member of profession A, there are relatively quick ways of communicating their level of expertise, e.g. education, place of employment, job title, years of experience. When someone self-identifies as a believer in religion X or political label Y, it is less easy to characterize their experience in the practice (usually harder than knowledge) of the community's exoteric and esoteric p…

when you are being 'cognizant and honest', it is not about labels anymore. sticking with labels is exactly what 'politicking' is all about. 'Communist' is a label. Belief in voluntary mutual help, freedom of thought (i.e. right to know, to have free access to full information), freedom from coercion and manipulation (by deceptive misreporting, or forbidding access to some info, etc.) actually clashes with accepted practices by political communism as observed in recent history, but is goal- and values- oriented. So my thing is, let it be not about labels but about values - specific values, about sum total of our stances on specific issues. "To be" a "Communist" is thus a self-deception, substituting labels of political party affiliation for the true and real values. We as people often mix the two - we search for groups of people sharing our values to join in with them, and use labels as approximants, but this vague thinking usually / always leads to confusion and self-delusion. Same with religions. We sink into the details of a particular myth and forget that it was the shared values we were after, in the first place.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#99

Post by tendicular »

alexpetralia wrote: post #50
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.g…

thanks for the link. this is about protecting our 'investments', the fallacy of sunk costs. OTOH if we try to be honest and self-aware, what we're left with are the few core values and ideals, mostly about what choices are acceptable to us, that form our moral core. Maybe that's what he meant by "narrow" identity.

Re: Keep your Identity Small (2009)

#100

Post by tensor_rank_0 »

kelnos wrote: post #72
tensor_rank_0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't get that, though: there's little to no penalty in this case to avoid "defecting". Things may cost a little more for you, but it's not nearly as drastic or dire as the expected outcome in the actual prisoner's dilemma if you don't defect.

consider that the cost of complying is immediate and borne by the agent, whereas the penalty of defection is discounted according to the degree to which people believe it can be postponed (insofar as they consider the penalty at all).
Post reply on HN