Live data from Hacker News

Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

271–280 of 321 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#271

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…

To keep your identity small is probably akin to becoming a small Buddha. Identity is even a dominant political trend in itself. "Identity politics". I agree with the premise of the post. I just cannot see how it can be done. I think it's better to learn to accept differences gracefully rather than minimizing the identity surface. It's also my way to test people and communities. Try to disagree on something they consi…

>I just cannot see how it can be done.

Learning to think and communicate in terms of what people and things do rather than labels, i.e. what they are, has been helpful for me.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#272

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…

The paradox is that people seem to need a sense of identity. You can't have no identity. And there can be some sort of psychological satisfaction that comes from sharing an identity category with others.

>You can't have no identity.

True. But one can become less attached to their identity and learn to be more fluid and less rigid about it. Thinking in terms of what one does, rather than what they are, seems helpful to me.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#273

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.

It's about learning to not automatically do that to others.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#274
"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 or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?"

Has Paul never actually read HN or any JS discussion online? Or any forum, really?

Case study: my wife, who enjoys spinning wool, watched a (metaphorical) knock-down, drag-out argument about sheep variations on a spinning forum. Just before a user was banned, it had devolved into some very creative swearing and threats to kill sheep in another poster's geographic area.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#275
While the topics of politics and religion are definitely known stirring up controversy, and that arguments often boil down to ideology and belief making common ground hard to find, I don't think it's healthy to view them as one in the same.

Religion is important to people's identities for different reasons than politics. Religion influences people through philosophy, spiritualism, and salvation. People are opinionated about it because is an intrinsic function of religion to be unwavering.

Politics is different. It's possible to know a great deal about policy, and still hold unwavering ideological commitment to a side because you understand the consequences of policy. Political decisions create dynasties and destroy lives. People's literal survival hinges on the decisions of politicians, and in a Democracy we all have to play a part in what direction the machine goes.

Politics directly affects people day-to-day in a way that Religion never can. The largest problem I see is that people view politics through the lens of self-interest. One group may want lower taxes so that they can better use and save their income, while others may want higher taxes to fund welfare and provide a safety net from extreme poverty. Neither side cares about what the other side has to gain or lose, they only care about their side. So then we end up with nothing but bad faith BS and crappy compromises.

Politics is important. We should work harder to understand where our neighbors are coming from and find solutions that benefit the most people, not just our people. Discussing politics deeply and knocking down social taboos is a good thing, and we should do it more, not less.

Religion, on the other hand, is not so important to debate. We should respect people's individual religious beliefs, but we should also learn to keep our differences to ourselves because our varying religious and spiritual beliefs aren't really up for debate. What I believe or don't believe is of no consequence to anyone but me.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#276

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?

I think pg actually has another article (can't find it now) where he discusses hacking identity to ingrain positive behaviors. For example making "I'm a 3 workouts/week person" part of your identity. If that's you, skipping a day in the gym is a serious blow to your identity and self-image. It worked for me.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#277

"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 or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?" Has Paul never actually read HN or any JS discussion online? Or any forum, really? Case study: my wife, who enjoys spinning wool, watched a (metaphorical) knock-down, drag-out argument about sheep variation…

> “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 or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?”

> Has Paul never actually read HN or any JS discussion online? Or any forum, really?

Yeah, this is one of those things that I cannot imagine anyone having sufficient experience with religious discussions online to make the initial observation also having so little experience with discussing literally anything else online to suggest that it was somehow unique to religion.

I mean, there's a reason Godwin's Law is scoped to online discussions generally, not any particular subject matter.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#278

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…

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…

Reminds me of an SMBC comic on "Quantum Hypocrisy": https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/gedankendouche

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#279
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…

I don’t think it would be surprising in many places that alt-lifestyle folks would find more discrimination in traditional work areas and have specific interests in gig props.

But I’d agree there are probably domains where the interests don’t really intersect.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#280
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dir…

> 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.

You are pretending that the endorsement actually had anything to do with the text of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I assume the endorsement you are plucking a reference to is, "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present". You didn't mention it, so your statement isn't clear.

Thanks for your time, but I have no interest in discussing side arguments further and further from my point about politics being simple, where anyone can be involved.

Post reply on HN