A technical note about his note [1]. pg says, When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical, but he probably means "like a core going supercritical", which is when a chain reaction goes on at an increasing rate (i.e. what you need for a nuclear explosion). Critical is an equilibrium (i.e the self-sustaining condition, as used for power generation).
Keep Your Identity Small
11–20 of 267 posts
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#12Perhaps some day, the English language will have just one word for politics and religion.
Why would that happen? Just because the two fields have certain things in common doesn't mean they're indistinguishable.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#13I think the flipside of this is people liking to belong to groups. Most of the time belonging to any group with a properties that are essentially homogenous across the members involves some suspension of disbelief. Once people have made that leap and accepted whatever core values those are, they in turn define themselves in those terms, ignoring the fact that they weren't rationally vetted or arrived at through independent thought on the way in. Then if you've got some logisticians among the group, they'll go to great lengths to systematically rationalize the things that they mostly accepted because they're a part of that group. (I certainly do.) This goes from anything from political activism to religion to free software.
This of course isn't necessarily bad or wrong -- in fact I think society would scarcely function were for it not for a modicum of such behavior -- but it does mean that people aren't having these debates in the way that they would another debate -- because they've already know the answer, they're just trying to convince others that their opinion isn't stupid and wrong.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#14I'm pretty sure we could argue about Javascript. Just mention Prototype and the jQuery zealots are relentless! :P
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#15Its posts like this and Paul's "How to Disagree" that remind me of an idea that I keep coming back to again and again.
I've often wondered what would be possible in terms of designing a website that aims to moderate debate in a way that leads to new ideas and conclusions and attempts to negate as many of these types of effects as possible.
Some formal system, that the users would have no choice but to follow, that begins with some one making a statement such as "X is true because of Y and Z" and then everyone debates it, reforms the statement as necessary and at some point it gets locked in as either true or false and then the discussion has to proceed based on that understanding.
People are forced to address each others points and eliminate as much bias as possible in their statements.
You could visually map out the progress that gets made until perhaps some new interesting conclusion gets reached.
Obviously no perfect solution exists but for me its an interesting question of how useful a system could be designed. There's also the obvious problems that a) few people are likely to want to use such a system and b) those that do are probably skewed to favor some particular point of view.
There is just so much wasted energy on the internet not being harnessed for actual progress. There are many blogs etc that have been created with the specific purpose of progressing some cause or area of expertise but people are just turning up, yelling opinions at one another and leaving with very little gained. Such is life I guess...
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#16"Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs."
No, every opinion is not equally valid - there is a range of probabilities into which opinions can be classified. The more improbable the belief, the less valid it is. One doesn't have to prove that a theory is 100% wrong, merely that on the scale of probability it scores poorly against a rival theory.
For example, I may believe the earth is 4,000 years old but it is a demonstrably false opinion. It doesn't matter how sincerely I believe this or that a quarter of the planet's humans believe that. Similarly, there is one good explanation for how and when life originated on earth, and all the other "competing" opinions are highly improbable.
One of religion's goals is to explain the world, but science does a much better job, and yet people's religious beliefs are expected to be respected, even if they are stupid and childish (which they are most of the time). Another goal of religion is to set a standard for morals, and yet holy books are full of despicable, horrendously grotesque, anti-human "morals".
I think that one of the reasons people have a hard time admitting their religions and religious beliefs are fantasies is that they have been indoctrinated since childhood that faith is a virtue, to not ask WHY. Some of this appears to have its origin in natural selection, because children who believe at face value what their parents tell them are more likely to survive.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#17Simplifying one's personal identity is a hard path to follow and a good way to get to feeling lost. It takes a lot of faith to put one foot in front of the other when the path before you spans wide, untrodden.
Eckhart Tolle sells a good mindset to carry this sort of work.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#18I have a friend who, when asked his nationality, will always respond "citizen of the world". He thinks that the answer has much to recommend it and that it is not an identity. He is right in the first respect and very wrong in the other.
Ditto with "Having considered the alternatives rationally, I reject the notion of having an identity vis a vis [religion, politics, etc]".
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#19I think we can also observe that the topics people weakly identify with are common topics for small talk e.g. weather, movies, pets etc.
Family is also a common subject of small talk ("How is your wife doing?"), which is identity-plus-plus for most people, and the mating habits of snails are topics most people weakly identify with but not commonly used for small talk, so I'm guessing that relationship is a little less persuasive than it seems to be at first brush.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#20I think we can also observe that the topics people weakly identify with are common topics for small talk e.g. weather, movies, pets etc.
Perhaps all that saves these kinds of conversations from spiraling into "religious wars" is peoples' recognition that these things are arbitrary and ridiculous to get upset about.
For instance, I am a dog person and my girlfriend is a cat person. Occasionally, we start to debate the relative merits of each. And there may in fact be one which is in general "better"; after all, most people would agree that dog ownership is better than man-eating tiger ownership. But since we both recognize that dog and cat ownership is a rather silly thing to get upset about, we don't.
On the other hand, politics (for example) are considered to be important. And while we may realize that it's nearly impossible to find a "right answer", that our discussion will likely lead to nothing, etc., we don't feel silly getting upset about it. That, combined with our identity-based connection with politics, leads to flared tempers and out-of-control discussions.