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

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#81

Post by IncRnd »

dnissley wrote: post #73
bigdict wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No thread about Javascript will grow as fast as one about religion Seriously, this reads like satire now.

I don't think it does, so long as one uses a sufficiently broad definition of religion (e.g. crypto, wokeness). Also my impression is that there was a spike of js hate ~3-5 years ago that has since subsided. I think it grew alongside the development of web applications, where more and more people who had little previous exposure to js were suddenly forced to confront it as some part of their workflow or other. Can yo…

> I don't think it does, so long as one uses a sufficiently broad definition of religion (e.g. crypto, wokeness).

Crypto and wokeness are not religions in the actual sense of the word religion. It's a shame that people redefine words in order to change their meanings to fit what they are saying.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

travisjungroth wrote: post #58

The sentence that strikes me as the essence of the essay: "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants." Is that true? I really don't think it is. I could definitely have a fruitful (as precise as that can be) conversation with a Christian about religion or a "proud Black man" about race in America. Or even learn a thing or two a…

> "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants."

> Is that true?

I don't think so, but it approaches a truth. You can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any two or more of the participants in areas where they have fundamental and intractable conflict.

But even this requires a very specific definition of “engage”. Its not just a matter of having overlap with content of the identity, but provoking a defensive, identity-based response. There are people who can converse around identity-related issues without their identity being engaged.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#83

Post by [deleted] »

nine_k wrote: post #79
Swizec wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun realization I made over the past 18 months or so after 6 years living in USA continuously: When you're white, you can't be an immigrant. This whole time I thought I was a plucky immigrant seeking a better life (economically). Turns out I was and am just white. Still grappling with this. Learning your identity was wrong is very discombobulating. On some level it feels like maybe I've been here long enough that I'v…

Compared to this, it's fun to live and work in NYC. Here everybody assumes that everybody else can be an immigrant, or at least moved across the country to live here. But everybody also assumes that everybody else may be local, independently from the skin color, eye shape, accent, etc. (I personally love this arrangement. I've seen it in several other cities, like London and Moscow.)

[deleted]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#84

Post by ineedasername »

Or we could find ways to promote civil discourse. Avoiding conversation about difficult topics we disagree about doesn't seem like a very good idea. Society still has to deal with these things. You can't avoid personal beliefs involved in navigating the politics that run a country. Learning to have productive discussions about that and similar scenarios is a learned skill.

Heck, while HN is by no means perfect, the ability of people here an HN to do just that is what makes HN a step above many other online forums. This stuff isn't impossible, it's just not easy. On HN it takes awareness of and reminders about the community norms. People point out in replies that a parent post did not need to shift it's tone a certain way or level a personal attack. I frequently see posts voted down that express opinions that I know plenty of HN'ers agree with because their method of expression was disruptive to productive conversation. I'm as likely to downvote such comments as I am to upvote well reasoned comments that express something I disagree with.

I make mistakes on it too, and have been called out. I take a step back, consider it, and if the accusation fits then I apologize and resolve to do better. It's a group effort.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#86

Post by nine_k »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #17

I’m confounded by the advice to avoid conflict by restricting one’s identity. By all means, don’t conflate your preference with your identity. But this is an awful way to address people whose actual experienced identity is needlessly a source of conflict. I spent most of my life shielding myself from admitting I’m queer, and nearly all of it shielding myself from admitting I’m non-binary and admitting I’m autistic, u…

I think the advice is about not getting offended by differences in opinions about stuff you don't have to care about much.

This is not an advice to hide the key elements of your identity. Instead, it's an advice to concentrate on them, and protect them with the energy you saved by not wasting it on petty issues.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#87

Post by lliamander »

dnissley wrote: post #73
bigdict wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No thread about Javascript will grow as fast as one about religion Seriously, this reads like satire now.

I don't think it does, so long as one uses a sufficiently broad definition of religion (e.g. crypto, wokeness). Also my impression is that there was a spike of js hate ~3-5 years ago that has since subsided. I think it grew alongside the development of web applications, where more and more people who had little previous exposure to js were suddenly forced to confront it as some part of their workflow or other. Can yo…

I get there similarities, but I worry we are engaging in semantic diffusion.

If we define religion as "anything people get super passionate and opinionated about" then it's pretty much tautological that people will argue about such things, without telling us anything about why such arguments start in the first place.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#88

Post by [deleted] »

reader_x wrote: post #78

If people cannot argue fruitfully about questions that are part of their identity (and I agree with this premise), then it follows that for one to win politically (or convert them), the trick is not to convince people that your views are correct, but rather to convince people that their identity is threatened and that them maintaining their current identity (whatever that identity may be—and perhaps vagueness is key…

[deleted]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#89

Post by approxim8ion »

lmm wrote: post #65
TchoBeer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distinction without a difference.

No, it's a very real difference. Do I think this is an important part of who I am, or a random happenstance? If I were attracted to different people, would that make me a different person, in an important way? Realising/deciding that it wasn't actually important to me what sexuality people perceived me as eliminated a lot of stress and conflict, personally.

> personally.

And that is fine, but it doesn't mean it should be prescribed to everyone.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#90

Post by andagainagain »

aazaa wrote: post #72

> Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs. I'd suggest another guideline: keep your claims falsifiable. The most heated online…

I think there is a similarity between both statements. The issue as I see it comes when people have strong opinions not based in commonly agreed upon facts.

So what we end up having is person A saying "we should get rid of ABC, it causes XYZ!", and person B says "ABC is amazing! Everyone should have ABC! The XYZ claim is overblown conspiracy", both opinions are very strong. But they don't agree on whether ABC causes XYZ. Before an intelligent conversation happens, the basis in fact has to be agreed upon.

This is basically impossible with non-falsifiable claims. But non-falsifiable claims generally means "there is no evidence for it". Because if a claim relies on evidence, then it is by default falsifiable. Show the evidence is wrong, and the claim disappears.

If there is no evidence... they didn't come to their beliefs through evidence. They came through some other means. Find out THOSE reasons, and you can have a fruitful discussion.

I've had plenty of fruitful discussions about politics just as I have about religion. The key in both cases is finding that reasoning. In both cases that reasoning is almost never the topic at hand. Don't start a political conversation with slavery. Start it with... idk... maybe what news outlets they pay attention to.

Post reply on HN