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

101–110 of 321 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#101

Post by wernercd »

IncRnd wrote: post #81
dnissley wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bring up tabs vs spaces or ;'s at end of lines or spaces as code (IE: Python) and watch the fervor over opinions fly.

You may not call it "religion"... but deep held beliefs of the Only True Way come out and I'm not sure what else it should be called.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#102

Post by Swizec »

barry-cotter wrote: post #93
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…

> Friends have repeatedly told me I'm not allowed to complain or comment because "I can pass". Feels like if that were true I wouldn't need to pass, but when I ask that question it's like their brain gets a blue screen. “Friends”

It was meant as a friendly warning, I think. Like a "Make sure you don't say this in public or to people you aren't super close with, you'll be crucified"

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#103

Post by tachyonbeam »

ineedasername wrote: post #84

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 a…

When I went to high school, I remember having to take philosophy schools, and we went into the art of debate, etc. How to argue about different viewpoints without getting emotional, respecting your opponent, proper protocol for discussion.

Liberal values used to mean being tolerant of different view points, being open minded, being kind, respectful, and being aware of the dangers of censorship. We were given banned books to read (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird). It makes me sad that, as a society, we seem to be losing such values.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#104

Post by dnissley »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #98
dnissley wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it's too soon to tell if they take off, but they seem to fit the bill to me: Priests, holy writings, dogmatic beliefs, original sin, etc. As a way of bounding this definition, I don't think javascript would count as a religion. Although perhaps I'm not sufficiently tapped into that world to make the necessary parallels.

Do all religions have a concept of original sin?

Definitely not, although any grouping of beliefs with a concept mapping to original sin strikes me as religious. So kind of a "not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles" situation.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#105

Post by lmm »

approxim8ion wrote: post #89
lmm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People recommend practices that worked for them. If other people have actually tried (rather than theorising) and found this didn't work for them then of course I'd be interested in hearing about that as well.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#106

Post by visualradio »

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…

Identity is used to automate decision making, so less energy is expended on conscious thought, so less time is spent weighing pros and cons of each alternative for every daily decision. If someone is 'dog person' they have routine where they take dog for walks, with positive effects such as exercise, without having to weigh pros and cons each time it is performed. If someone is coffee person, they do not have to weigh pros and cons of what to drink with breakfast. With politics this is perhaps bad, as we do not want people to make decisions unconciously, we want citizens to weigh pros and cons conciously, so that they are less easily duped. But for other daily activities it is useful to simplify decision making so conscious thought can be allocated elsewhere.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#107

Post by Rebelgecko »

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…

I think the amount of truth in that statement is "it depends". I've found that having conversations about certain controversial topics is can be unproductive unless you're talking to someone you know fairly well, and both parties are willing to listen with an open mind. When someone you don't know well says something that goes against your idea of common sense, it's easy to dismiss them as an out-group idiot. When it's someone you've known for years, who you know to be thoughtful about their beliefs, it's harder to dismiss them out of hand.

This is anecdotal, but I've also found that people who bring up those sorts of identity issues when you don't know them well aren't usually looking to engage with someone who disagrees. They're looking to see if you belong to the same tribe. If you do, it's an opportunity to bond.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#108

Post by [deleted] »

wernercd wrote: post #101
IncRnd wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Bring up tabs vs spaces or ;'s at end of lines or spaces as code (IE: Python) and watch the fervor over opinions fly. You may not call it "religion"... but deep held beliefs of the Only True Way come out and I'm not sure what else it should be called.

[deleted]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#109

Post by IncRnd »

dnissley wrote: post #94
IncRnd wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I suppose it's too soon to tell if they take off, but they seem to fit the bill to me: Priests, holy writings, dogmatic beliefs, original sin, etc. As a way of bounding this definition, I don't think javascript would count as a religion. Although perhaps I'm not sufficiently tapped into that world to make the necessary parallels.

> I suppose it's too soon to tell if they take off, but they seem to fit the bill to me: Priests, holy writings, dogmatic beliefs, original sin, etc.

Your list left out one thing that is in the definition of the word, religion.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#110

Post by systemvoltage »

xwdv wrote: post #19
vikingcaffiene 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” I got some bad news for 2009 PG from the future…

God those were simpler times back then.

Totally agree. Politics has ripped the fabric of society. I vividly remember how political discourse was in 2009. It was nowhere near as toxic, fascist, rage-fueled, woke, and dangerous as it is now. What has been lost? Truth. We've stopped caring about seeking truth and instead have resorted to subscribing to mob-mentality. Equally applies to both sides. The mere act of listening to both sides is considered as "silence is crime". WTF people. HN is probably one of the better places to have a political discourse but it has also suffered.

I yearn for pre-social media days.

Post reply on HN