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

221–230 of 321 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#221

Post by teachingassist »

imgabe wrote: post #134
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…

It depends on what you mean by "fruitful discussion". If you are willing to listen to a person expound on their identity, and accept uncritically whatever they say, then most people will happily talk your ear off about it. If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual, and discussions where one person…

> If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual

I don't think it's healthy conversation to "question" what someone [you have just met] is saying in any circumstances.

Questioning without having a developed background and context is a polite way of calling them a liar, isn't it?

"Oh, I haven't experienced that" is less confrontational - you are not expected to have experienced it if you don't hold the same identity.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#222

Post by Geezus_42 »

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.

That the evolution of language, it's been going on for hundreds of thousands of years...

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#223

Post by Geezus_42 »

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.

Zealotry?

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#224

Post by teachingassist »

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…

> regular people

You're skipping over the fact that only property owning white men were initially allowed to vote.

That was the group which expected to gain political power from the Declaration and Constitution - that was the target audience.

Defining "regular people" has a fraught history in the USA.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#225

Post by wozniacki »

teachingassist wrote: post #217
PeterisP wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

There are plenty of reasons to have a strong organization irrespective of whether it does what it says it does.

  1. To silence valid criticism & gag public opinion. 
  2. To take advantage of a splintered population of
  insignificant and disorganized clusters and interest groups
  & gain legislative / political power.
  3. To steer discussion & policy directives toward
  boondoggle initiatives so that there is semblance of
  progress but very little to show in the way of actual
  positive outcomes - outcomes deemed not core to the said
  group's world outlook.
  4. To bully lawmakers into shaping public policies in the
  hopes of creating a moat so big, that it effectively
  shields said organization from any incursion, for decades
  to come.
Basically all organizations - in the current highly polarized atmosphere - want to concentrate power within themselves for use as currency for various objectives - whose motivations are not necessarily what they appear on the surface. No matter what the organization is, the more powerful it is the more of these things it engages in, by virtue of just being powerful.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#226

Post by kaiwen1 »

"all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible"

If one is opposed to, for example, the genocide of a people of some particular identity, then that strongly held position may itself be an identity, while another group holds as its identity the support of such genocide. One of these identities is essential to progress; the other is detrimental.

There is value in a moral identities, and likewise value in opposition to immoral identities. The difference is absolutely consequential, even though many people will fail discern on which side of the line they stand.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#227

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

abecedarius wrote: post #137
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…

If this is the explanation then shouldn't we find it weird how intensely factional humans are about identities? How much work marketers put into identifying segments and creating associations? A smart robot would also economize on decisions, but it wouldn't necessarily gang up with other Emacs robots against the vi robots.

Well of course it wouldn't because all robots are Emacs robots \s.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#230

Post by imgabe »

teachingassist wrote: post #221
imgabe wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what you mean by "fruitful discussion". If you are willing to listen to a person expound on their identity, and accept uncritically whatever they say, then most people will happily talk your ear off about it. If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual, and discussions where one person…

> If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual I don't think it's healthy conversation to "question" what someone [you have just met] is saying in any circumstances. Questioning without having a developed background and context is a polite way of calling them a liar, isn't it? "Oh, I haven't experienc…

A discussion does not have to mean you are only talking about things you have personally experienced. It might mean things that you think should or shouldn’t happen in the future or implications about what is happening in the broader world based on your personal experiences or beliefs.

If the conclusions someone draws for one of these things are based on what they consider their identity, they may be very resistant to hear any contrary opinions.

A healthy (or fruitful) discussion should have room for reasonable disagreement about the meanings and implications of what one has personally experienced. You need not deny the reality of someone’s experience to draw a different conclusion from it than they do.

Post reply on HN