Live data from Hacker News

Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#151
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird take. None of this has anything to do with wealth or class. It's about avoiding making arbitrary things so dear to you that you are unable to question anything about them, or even have productive, honest discussions about them. Your "good version" doesn't really make sense to me, and seems to have nothing to do with what the article is about.

It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should…

[deleted]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#152
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should…

you are loading a tremendous amount of extra stuff into what's being said here. is that the right move?

[deleted]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#153
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird take. None of this has anything to do with wealth or class. It's about avoiding making arbitrary things so dear to you that you are unable to question anything about them, or even have productive, honest discussions about them. Your "good version" doesn't really make sense to me, and seems to have nothing to do with what the article is about.

It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should…

So what? Graham isn't talking about all that other stuff! He's just talking about "things people make a part of their identity" (for whatever reason, whether that's by choice or through a failure to resist outside pressure), and what the possible negative effects can be.

I frankly don't care that Graham is rich and influential and maybe has an easier time of controlling what he thinks of himself than other people do. "Keep things out of your identity" is useful advice, even if some people will unavoidably find that harder to do because of their social/economic status.

And I disagree that it applies to very few conversations. This can easily apply to the big stuff, like what some people are talking about in other threads on this post, when it comes to dealing with issues that affect marginalized groups. I think people like that are a fine example of when it can be hard to keep things out of your identity. As much as your identity (I prefer "core self-image", which I think is clearer) is your choice, often external factors will pressure you into choosing in certain ways. But I think it does harm discussions about those topics when people have made it such a core part of themselves that they can't see what kinds of persuasion other people would respond best to. I unfortunately see that sort of thing pretty often.

Put another way: yes, Graham is probably the kind of person for whom it is not hard to set his own identity without all that much outside pressure. He's rich and influential. Other people will get put into boxes and groups by others who are more powerful than they are. And these less-powerful people will have a harder time keeping those things from seeping into their own identities. But that doesn't change the (IMO) correctness of Graham's message that it is useful to resist that pressure, even if it's harder for some people to do so.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#154
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor kid. He's been subjected to what amounts to child abuse. Sadly, that is the norm. Some say that we have an identity crisis in part because of our liberal, existentialist, non-committal notions of "freedom". It's also what drives much of the opportunism of FOMO and ADHD. The very notions of sacrifice, commitment, suffering for a good, and devotion repel us (whatever "commitments" we do have are merely emotional p…

"Child abuse"? Please, give me a break. This is no different to any kid muddling through adolescence and trying to make sense of their emotions as they grow up. Just because it's about gender and sexuality doesn't make it child abuse.

While the comment above is verbose to the brink of bombasticity, it drives a strong point. A child needing their gender identity diagnosed is a far cry from the perils of adolescence that past societies encountered.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#155
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should…

So what? Graham isn't talking about all that other stuff! He's just talking about "things people make a part of their identity" (for whatever reason, whether that's by choice or through a failure to resist outside pressure), and what the possible negative effects can be. I frankly don't care that Graham is rich and influential and maybe has an easier time of controlling what he thinks of himself than other people do.…

To me, the core of what I am pointing out as "very Paul Graham" is in these two quotes:

> I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions. and If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity[...]

To view discussions where people get upset as "useless" reflects a certain hierarchy of the purposes of discussion and the goals of inquiry. The same is true for prioritizing the kind of impassioned discussions that Graham is talking about here. His advice is good (Paul Graham is not dumb!) if you feel the same way and value this kind of high minded dispassionate discussion.

Perhaps what I should have said is that I believe most people do not feel they suffer when they experience (and voice) the emotional weight of conversations. They suffer because they feel unseen and unheard in those conversations - the conflict is a symptom, not the disease. There's nothing wrong with wanting people to discuss things they care deeply about dispassionately - but there's nothing right about it either. It reflects a certain hierarchy of values and goals that are, again, "very Paul Graham." It sounds like those values are very you too! Which is fine!

This advice will make you better able to engage in the way that Paul Graham wants to engage! I certainly agree with that. But I do not think it is "better" in a particularly universal way.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#156
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Graham isn't talking about all that other stuff! He's just talking about "things people make a part of their identity" (for whatever reason, whether that's by choice or through a failure to resist outside pressure), and what the possible negative effects can be. I frankly don't care that Graham is rich and influential and maybe has an easier time of controlling what he thinks of himself than other people do.…

To me, the core of what I am pointing out as "very Paul Graham" is in these two quotes: > I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions. and If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity[...] To view discussions where people get upset as "useless" reflects a certain hierarchy of the purposes of discussion and the goals of inquiry. The…

At the bottom what you're saying is no one is right about anything ever and its all just opinions and value systems maaaan. Sure if you define a value system where yelling a lot and accomplishing little is the goal then mission accomplished, but I don't think its classist to say that's a pretty shit value system. It certainly isn't as good a value system as any other in the sense that there's some alternate universe where the conventionally successful people have those values and the conventionally unsuccessful have the PG-of-our-universe values.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#157

Mr. Graham does have a big political identity (on twitter). Sure, he shares more anecdotes about raising his kids than "anti-woke" messages, but it doesn't hold up against this essay. His essay might still be right of course.

Heaven hates what it hates, who knows the reason why? Therefore even the sage treats some things as difficult. The way of heaven excels in overcoming though it does not contend, in responding though it does not speak, in attracting though it does not summon, and in laying plans though it appears slack.

The say heaven is a place of love?

We'll make heaven a place on earth.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#158

I wonder if people ask themselves, "am I a good artifact of criticism?" Obectively, your identity is a set of meaningless reflections you have cohered into a narrative that centralizes your subjective experience. Subjectively, your identity is a story you protect and use a constant process of retroactive continuity to moralize and preserve it. They are both artifacts of language, which is not a substrate or the real…

No post body was provided.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#159
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird take. None of this has anything to do with wealth or class. It's about avoiding making arbitrary things so dear to you that you are unable to question anything about them, or even have productive, honest discussions about them. Your "good version" doesn't really make sense to me, and seems to have nothing to do with what the article is about.

It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should…

There's a difference between what you yourself believe is core to who you are, and what other people would say is core. They both get called identity, but I think Paul Graham is talking about the first, which is something you really are allowed to choose in the privacy of your own head.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one example you might want to consider how Asian males are considered in Latin America as opposed to the US (hint: a lot more desirable)

Valid info. I have not considered it. Economic status and size are factors in female attraction. Asians are generally higher in economic status, statistically speaking, and latin americans are generally poorer and smaller in size so they are more comparable in stature to East Asians. This makes logical sense to what I already know. However it doesn't invalidate the German Sheppard theory. North Americans are generall…

Asians have a more positive image in Latin America because the overwhelming impression is that of Bruce Lee machismo, Peruvian Chinese and Japanese Brazilians and not Hollywood casting
Post reply on HN