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

211–220 of 321 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#211

Post by FartyMcFarter »

> 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.

Something about this paragraph strikes me as very wrong, and I'll try to articulate why:

I would consider my values as part of my identity, and yet I'd like to think I can engage with someone else in a clear discussion that involves my values. I may have strong opinions about something, but that doesn't mean I'm unable to think clearly about it. I might even change my mind slightly about some thing or introduce nuance into an otherwise-strong opinion as a result of this discussion.

Furthermore, if values are part of one's identity, is Paul advocating that one should reduce one's set of values? This seems negative and possibly even dangerous.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#212

Post by rjbwork »

kortilla wrote: post #182
rjbwork wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why are people seemingly so drawn to identifying themselves as anything at all? IMO, not enough meditation or psychedelic use. On his podcast sometime this year, Sam Harris said something to the effect of "Why am I so sure that we are capable of moving past these politics of identity? That one does not have to so strongly, or at all, identify with their gender or race or country? Because I know that one does not eve…

It’s easy to pretend your physical characteristics don’t matter when people don’t discriminate against you based on them.

And yet, here's you doing it to him - discounting the argument based on his physical appearance. A truly brilliant way of disproving your own point.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#213

Post by spadros »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #211

> 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. Something about this paragraph strikes me as very wrong, and I'll try to articulate why: I would consider my values as part of my identity, and yet I'd like to think I can engage with someone else in a clear discussion that invo…

"Things" is a pretty abstract term here. I think Paul is more guiding you to consider your values rather than your identity when considering a topic. I don't think he is proclaiming that you should eliminate values or some sort of subjective ethics.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#214

Post by roflc0ptic »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #211

> 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. Something about this paragraph strikes me as very wrong, and I'll try to articulate why: I would consider my values as part of my identity, and yet I'd like to think I can engage with someone else in a clear discussion that invo…

I think he's suggesting that you not identify with your values. Instead of identifying with your values "I am an honest person, I am forthright in my dealings with people", you could try to identify with "I am someone who strives to act in accordance with my values." This is generally more inclusive - it broadens the scope of people who are in that identity, and makes it a bit easier to identify with other people who are acting out different values sets.

Personally, I don't spend a lot of time on identity, I just cultivate a practice of doing the best I can in the circumstances I'm in, as constrained by my limited knowledge and limited capacity. "Best" here is wildly subjective, of course, but that's kind of the point: I'm the arbiter of if I did the best I could in the circumstances, or if I was being self deceptive, or intolerably lazy or selfish or whatever.

That's not to say you couldn't tease out a value set that I'm acting out - I favor being kind and honest in most circumstances, but on rare occasions targeted, constrained cruelty is a useful and moral tool. Identifying with a particular thing gets in the way of the sort of contextual, thoughtful morality that enables thoughtful action.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#215

Post by varjag »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #177
ramblerman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't mean the same thing though. If they are working abroad with the intention of returning, then expatriate is the correct term.

No, in my understanding expatriated has two specific meanings: 1. Legally expatriated by a Nation/government. Removed from a nation's territory by decision of said nation. 2. Comission/Secondment abroad, where an employee of a government/company gets assigned to work abroad for a fixed period. From what I gather the term expat has been appropriated in British-American circles, to somehow detach higher income immigran…

When an English term sounds too shitty on them, the British reliably turn to Latin or French.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#216

Post by koheripbal »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #211

> 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. Something about this paragraph strikes me as very wrong, and I'll try to articulate why: I would consider my values as part of my identity, and yet I'd like to think I can engage with someone else in a clear discussion that invo…

There are two issue.

One is that if you encounter someone who doesn't reflect your values, because you have made those values part of your core identity, you will react very emotionally to them.

The second is that many of the people that use commonly sited values as their identity often simply copy/paste them from the others - without actually questioning them themselves, and so are really more part of a trend than a unit of original thought.

I agree that it's important to have values, but I'd love to see more people tolerant of a diversity of belief systems than a monolithic intolerant mass psyche.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#217

Post by teachingassist »

PeterisP wrote: post #198
XorNot wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this a problem? If there's a proposition out there the wording is going to be sufficiently dense that it's not super-likely a casual observer will have a good grasp of it's actual effect, whereas if you're gay and the local LGBTQI support organizations are coming out in favor of a proposition, then it's fairly unlikely this is something you want to oppose. There's a big difference between "this political party…

Arguably for most propositions it should be absolutely irrelevant to a gay person what the local LGBTQI support organizations think about it, since most propositions are about other, unrelated issues. If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations and gun right fans would be voting on housing law propositions based on what the NRA recomm…

> If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations

Gay people don't have to, and often don't, vote based on LGBTQI organization recommendations.

However, if LGBTQI organizations believe that LGBTQI people are more impacted by gig work, shouldn't the orgs be speaking on that?

It seems relevant to me. As long as dismissal for being gay is still possible, workers' rights seem to be very much in scope for these organizations.

[To downvoters: What's the point of having an organization, otherwise?]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#218

Post by koheripbal »

visualradio wrote: post #106
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 weig…

It also begs the question of why politics is the one field everyone seems to be an expert in - and the true experts in the field are never listened to.

Having the broader population decide geopolitical relationships, is like telling your doctor which cancer medication you should take.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#219

Post by meowface »

IncRnd wrote: post #77

Politics are _meant_ to be understood by the common person, especially in the US. The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution were intended to be understood by regular people. This is so that there wouldn't be a political class, who believes the common person needs to be ruled. Too bad we have that political class, anyway, along with regular people who believe politics should be inaccessible to regular people…

As far as I can tell, both the "political class" and the regular people aren't very good at understanding or productively participating in politics. The only decent and thoughtful political discussions I've ever seen have come from philosophers. Which perhaps could be considered an "elite" class, too, but IMO there's zero economic or status hierarchy that serves as a barrier to entry, unlike being a politician.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#220

Post by Geezus_42 »

IncRnd wrote: post #109
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.

> 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.

And that is?
Post reply on HN