Keep Your Identity Small (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#151

Post by coretx » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:39 AM UTC

pdamoc wrote: post #126

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…

> Why are people seemingly so drawn to identifying themselves as anything at all? This is biologically preconditioned. We have brain wiring for identifying "Us" and "Them". BigThink put up a compilation video [1] on this topic. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14XSzWT4vI0

Ehw,no. The ego ( the prime source of identity ) only enters existence when we first encounter another. And even then, it's nature constantly differs, instigated by it's surroundings. In a nutshell, your "Us" and "Them" usually differ from mine and often mutates. Essentially, this makes divide et impera & us versus them thinking even more stupid as we humans have "theory of mind" for a trait. Unlike many animals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

Edit: So it's a cultural rather than biological precondition. ( If a precondition at all. )

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#152

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:40 AM UTC

totetsu wrote: post #150

visualradio wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weig…

[Serious]I feel I've wasted so much time weighing pros and cons when someone asks me something like what my favorite animal is, because I never really made these things part of my identity.

[deleted]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#153

Post by edmundsauto » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:43 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #122

Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about the big stuff. Queer, non-binary, autistic is a small fraction of your identity. Hell any major allergies should make the cut. It’s the small stuff like considering yourself a Pepsi drinker that causes needless conflict. People buying bandaids have preferences, but it’s not something you’re going to argue about on the internet in all caps.

> Queer, non-binary, autistic is a small fraction of your identity. I don't even know how to take this seriously. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you want to clarify, as it seems like you don't want to minimize the big stuff, but... this feels like that. - - - Edit: it’s entirely possible people who don’t identify with these just don’t understand how huge they are for people who do. Which is part of what I…

I think the central idea is to not attach identity to unimportant facets. I agree the comment as written has issues, but think the summary is good advice.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#154

Post by int3 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:44 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #149

int3 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. I can respect that "all other things being equal" does not hold here. There are always tradeoffs. But there are real benefits to not identifying with things (as the essay discusses).

I think what makes me really uncomfortable about this whole discussion, the article and the interaction in the comments, is it’s being discussed like my identity is some dispassionate academic subject, rather than my living experience that isn’t up for debate. I’m not asking you to respect whether something in some article addresses my identity. I’m telling you I know what it is. It’s not a balance of tradeoffs. It’s…

> Why is it in your interest

Because a society where we can have less partisan opinions and more fruitful discussions is a better one.

But I'm not attacking you, and I don't think most of the other commenters are, either. You expressed a disagreement with its thesis and explained how identity has been useful to you. I just pointed out that perhaps there is a way to achieve the same goals without expanding your identity. I was trying to have a discussion about the essay. But it appears I misunderstood, and you did not actually wish to engage in a discussion, so I will stop here :)

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#155

Post by kabirgoel » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:46 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #122

Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about the big stuff. Queer, non-binary, autistic is a small fraction of your identity. Hell any major allergies should make the cut. It’s the small stuff like considering yourself a Pepsi drinker that causes needless conflict. People buying bandaids have preferences, but it’s not something you’re going to argue about on the internet in all caps.

> Queer, non-binary, autistic is a small fraction of your identity. I don't even know how to take this seriously. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you want to clarify, as it seems like you don't want to minimize the big stuff, but... this feels like that. - - - Edit: it’s entirely possible people who don’t identify with these just don’t understand how huge they are for people who do. Which is part of what I…

Not GP, but I think they meant big fraction and mistakenly wrote small fraction. At least that’s the only way their comment makes sense to me.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#156

Post by dang » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:48 AM UTC

Previous threads:

Keep your Identity Small (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16454591 - Feb 2018 (110 comments)

Keep your identity small (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732970 - May 2016 (153 comments)

Keep Your Identity Small (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6171790 - Aug 2013 (90 comments)

Keep Your Identity Small - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=471660 - Feb 2009 (253 comments)

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#157

Post by slim » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:59 AM UTC

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 the fast mecanism for trust. Where one declares being part of a group by segregating himself from other groups. Thus you can apply to him the aggregated history of his group and decide if you can trust him.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#158

Post by nathias » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 6:59 AM UTC

>I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.

This is the problem, not that people have identities (its better to have the biggest possible), but that they reduce themselves and others not just to their identities but also all identities in general to two types, this is probably very local to the US but its spreading.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#159

Post by Pennycade » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 7:13 AM UTC

The link to the Ledger article in the essay (linked from the word "others") is broken :(

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#160

Post by bildung » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 7:18 AM UTC

totetsu wrote: post #150

visualradio wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weig…

[Serious]I feel I've wasted so much time weighing pros and cons when someone asks me something like what my favorite animal is, because I never really made these things part of my identity.

I'm not sure people with a readily-available answer for these questions made these things part of their identity, they just use language differently.

For many people, language isn't that much about content, but about signaling affection, social bonds, respect etc. (and of course all the opposites). So "how are you" signals "I care for you", though they don't necessearily want/ are able to work with an honest answer - i.e. the moment of asking is the actual content, and words are just the communication channel.

People who work like this have readily available favorite animals and colors and so on because having these answers is important for maintaining fluent conversation, not necessarily because these things are more important to them. This different usage of language also explains why people often complain about something, but don't want to hear solutions from their communication partner: It's more about bonding by sharing the ups and downs of life, not about searching for a new solution.

And in my experience people working like this sometimes are self-conscious about communication, too, but focussing on the level that's elusive to them: Fearing they are dumb, don't know enough about the topic at hand and so on.