Keep Your Identity Small (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#251

Post by astura » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

Sebb767 wrote: post #26

> There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers, like how much a new government policy will cost. I definitely disagree. Sure, you can have an estimation of how much the new bureaucracy will cost in the short run, but you can never predict the second-order effects with certainty and disagreement about these is usually the actual conflict. The discussion is easier on some issues than others,…

Absolutely! Spending policies are often sold as cost cutting policies (spend $1 to get back $1.15).

It can get even more complicated when your new policy leads to large projects, many large, multi-year projects have certain assumptions baked into them which can turn out to be wrong. Years ago I was a minor participant in a root cause analysis for a government program that lasted 10 years and went way over budget. Our biggest finding was that the assumptions made when budgeting this project turned out to be incorrect and far too optimistic. These assumptions were actually fairly reasonable at the time they were made though.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#252

Post by eska » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

I noticed this particularly strongly while discussing Chinese politics with Chinese exchange students. If I told them "in my country, we differentiate between the state and the people", then it became actually possible to discuss their political party and its actions with them. Otherwise it immediately turned into a shouting match "but muh diaoyu islaaaands..!"

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#253

Post by xyzelement » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #235

xyzelement wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

// “I’m a dog person, not a cat person,” and other such bizarreness. Why are people seemingly so drawn to identifying themselves as anything at all? This is a powerful concept. When I studied yogic philosophy, the teacher pointed out how our language biases us towards identification. "I am hungry" in English reads like a statement of identity, whereas "j'ai faim" in French for example means "I HAVE a hunger". The hun…

>"I am hungry" in English reads like a statement of identity, whereas "j'ai faim" in French for example means "I HAVE a hunger". The hunger exists but it doesn't define my identity. >This identification is a lie. If you stop drinking coffee and start drinking tea, you are still 100% you, Your analysis of "I am hungry" is incorrect. In this case, the "am" is acting as a linking word and not about identity. See: https:…

Interesting tidbit. I guess I didn't argue linguistics with the teacher because I appreciated the larger philosophical point this was trying to teach.

As an aside (not not saying you were doing this btw) whenever there's an analogy, some percentage of people will try to argue the analogy directly rather than try to understand the concept it's attempting to communicate.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#254

Post by Zak » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

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…

I don't see these things as identities - at least, they don't have to be.

If you own a dog, you should take your dog for walks because you care about your dog, not because you're a dog person and that's what dog people do. If you drink tea every morning, that's a habit or routine - possibly a caffeine addiction if skipping it gives you withdrawal symptoms. You don't need to identify as a tea person for that routine to be useful to you.

I think both habits and identities can be harmful in politics, but identities are worse. If someone questions your habits, you might stop to think about them, but most people become defensive when someone questions their identity.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#255

Post by anton96 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #167

narrator wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking with people I consider to be very smart and intellectual. We were discussing the California propositions. They did not want to hear the specifics of the propositions. They only wanted to know which organizations were supporting which propositions. This is what political discourse is these days. Figuring out which team you're on based on what political influencers agree with you. Nobody bothers to unders…

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…

Because organization always conflate many ideas and interest together and on top of that organization and their idea changes with time.

For example Props 16 in California wanted to amend the state constitution by removing the article that sated that the state doesn't make any difference between different sexes/colors/sexuality.

Depending on how you place yourself regarding recent identity politics movement, you can be LGBTQI and prefer a state that doesn't discriminate because it's progressive or a state that discriminate because it can enact affirmative action.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#256

Post by TomSwirly » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #250

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But.. you apply to them the history as you think this history is, and this might be very different to what they think it is. This is IMO a great source of conflict. This is why I hate "-ism"/"-ists"-labels, because everyone seems to have a different opinion of what particular "-ism" words means. To use an example, Bernie Sanders' "socialism" is about sharing the wealth, meanwhile a lot of his opponents would argue be…

I stopped identifying as atheist when I realized most religious people I encountered thought that meant I wanted to outlaw their religion. I inadvertently put myself in a box with people who were the main association folks had with that word. Sometimes I want this effect so I can help change impressions. Like: furry and nonbinary. The goal then is to help bridge the gap between stereotype and the real human variety c…

> I stopped identifying as atheist when I realized most religious people I encountered thought that meant I wanted to outlaw their religion.

After thousands of years of exactly the reverse, that's rather rich, don't you think?

The vast majority of atheists would be perfectly happy to be left alone to their own devices. But in the United States at least, they are considered second-class citizens.

If someone is so biased that they become angry at the simple mention of a very abstract philosophical stance like atheism, is it really a good idea to placate them by pretending you are something else?

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#257

Post by yoz-y » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #243

yoz-y wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhere I’ve read something in the lines of “I’m not five, I don’t have a favourite color”. I’d go on a limb and say that if this kind of questions is asked you can either take it as an ice breaker and discuss the pros and cons (it makes for better small talk than weather) or answer at random if you don’t actually want to engage with the person.

>> "Somewhere I’ve read something in the lines of “I’m not five, I don’t have a favourite color”." That comes off as combative and doesn't make any sense. There's no connection between getting older and losing the ability to have preferences. I answer hot pink because it's true, and because it surprises people who think they know everything about me based on outward appearance.

I think it's more about choices being more nuanced as you get older, not really losing preferences. E.g. one might not have a favorite movie, but could have favorite action movie or similar.

Btw, 'hot pink' is the correct answer to the "what's your favorite color" question.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#258

Post by confidantlake » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

confidantlake wrote: post #244

mellavora wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the rest of the HN community, note that they did decide against being rulers, nor did they ever act as kings. See George Washington's retirement speech: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page... That's why we have a tradition of presidents only serving a maximum of two terms; which we only turned into a law when the tradition was violated.

You are seriously trying to claim George Washington was not a ruler? Sure he wasn't an absolute monarch and he did retire after 8 years. But he was president and the president is a ruler who has a lot in common with a constitutional monarch. One example, King George signed bills of Parliament into law, President Washington signed bills of Congress into law.

Good illustration of keeping identity small. No discussion, just blanket dismissals and drive by downvotes. Usually this site is better.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#259

Post by confidantlake » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #248

teachingassist wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

People committed evil actions 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and people unfortunately commit evil actions today. None of that changes who should be able to understand and engage in politics. In fact that is an argument that politics should be accessible to all. That way we can guard against an evil cabal of a ruling class that oppresess everyone but themselves. You've changed the discussion from th…

The point is that you are trying to claim that they wanted to keep politics accessible to all but somehow despite their best efforts a political class emerged.

Yet they didn't provide for direct democracy, enfranchised only part of the population, took the highest political offices for themselves, ect. Look at the first 5 presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. These were not some common guys off the street. These were the political elites of Colonial England and then early America.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#260

Post by teachingassist » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #248

teachingassist wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

People committed evil actions 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and people unfortunately commit evil actions today. None of that changes who should be able to understand and engage in politics. In fact that is an argument that politics should be accessible to all. That way we can guard against an evil cabal of a ruling class that oppresess everyone but themselves. You've changed the discussion from th…

> You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote.

I was disagreeing directly with your point that this was intended to be simple, or for "regular people". I contend that it wasn't any of this - it was intended to enrich a room-full of people with the support of wealthy elites. The immediate effect was to shift power only slightly, and not in the direction of regular people. How is that a strawman, please?

From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim.

> this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics.

Ironic.