Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep Your Identity Small

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 267 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#31

Post by Jebdm »

patio11 wrote: post #19
kurtosis wrote: post #5

I 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.

I think what he meant by "weakly identify with" was that people have opinions about these things but aren't hardcore about them. People will identify with the movies they like, what kind of pets they prefer, etc. On the other hand, I feel like very few identify with snail mating at all.

(As a side note, snail mating is actual fairly cool-looking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxejE8HB9lY . I actually like this one of slugs a bit more, skip in to about 2:30 for the good stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSW9kWIRCOQ )

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#32

Post by bokonist »

The thing that politics and religion have in common, is that they have large organizations that actively cultivate emotional responses and ideological conformity.

Organized religions do this because that's how they attract and hold on to followers.

Politicians and interest groups frame issues in emotional, moral, and ideological terms, because emotion and social pressure motivates voters to get off their butt and go to the polls. Rational self interest cannot motivate voters, because the effort it takes to vote is greater than the direct reward. The press sensationalizes politics and stokes fears of "the other" because emotion sells. The polarization starts at the top and trickles down into every internet comment thread.

Electoral/partisan democracy is poisonous. The Venetians had the right idea in using lotteries to select officials.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#35

Post by fizx »

patio11 wrote: post #19
kurtosis wrote: post #5

I 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.

We avoid confrontation on identity-plus-plus topics. Try starting a conversation with, "So your wife's kinda a bitch, eh?"

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#36

Post by parenthesis »

gnaritas wrote: post #21
joubert wrote: post #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.…

You can't argue against religion with logic or facts, if that were possible religion would have died a long time ago. As far as everyone is concerned, all opinions pretty much are equally valid, whether they actually are or not doesn't seem to matter.

One can argue against (a) religion with logic and facts.

With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)

With facts: for example geological/fossil evidence can be used to argue against creationism. (The best one can do in trying to put forward 'facts' is to put forward what is well supported by the available evidence, and better supported than known alternatives. So, here for example, one would also have to try and find fault with whatever evidence can be brought forward in support of creationism.)

Whether or not those on each side of a debate will give due dispassionate consideration to the other sides' arguments, is another matter, however. Presumably, what you meant was that one can't argue successfully against religion with logic or facts.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#37

Post by DanielBMarkham »

It might not just be identifying with something. It doesn't seem that it's completely identify based, at least to me.

I drive a Jeep -- love old Jeeps. It's part of who I am. But if somebody started ragging on Jeeps in a forum I was in I don't think it'd matter. I wouldn't feel threatened. I like Jeeps. So what. I also like puppies.

Some subjects make people feel threatened because to talk about them, in any fashion, is to personally criticize their judgment and their intelligence.

It's the degree people feel threatened. Most people, when you poke around at their politics or their religion, realize their is something deeply irrational going on in their head. They don't take kindly to having people mucking around in there, questioning their sanity -- their value as a fellow person. Religion and politics are topics where the fact that emotions drive reasoning is very close to the surface. It makes probing difficult.

As a further example, I disagree with Paul's opinion on languages. Inevitably we get into a discussion of what "best" means. At the end of the day, "best" usually means whatever I personally value. To criticize that is to criticize how I make opinions. Paul values terseness. Bob values availability of programmer. Joe values available libraries, etc. Once we start questioning judgment -- especially for programmers -- it gets personal.

I've been in the consulting biz for a while -- long enough to move from code monkey to trying to help managers make better decisions. A lot of this is like poking around in a minefield: on some topics people feel their character/intelligence/judgment is a lot more at stake than others. These are the topics you don't want to go bringing up in a forum, online or not.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#38

Post by xenophanes »

I think Paul Graham is mistaken that large identities are the problem. I think plenty of programmers have big egos too.

I propose the difference is the traditions about how to argue politics and religion, which don't apply as much to arguing javascript. Even people with low egos can have fruitless discussions about politics, because they are so accustomed to making certain kinds of statements which replay the same scene the other guy also knows how to have. Persuading anyone takes more lateral thinking than that.

I do agree that strongly identifying with ideas is a bad thing. As Popper said, we should let our ideas die in our place. We can change our minds! If you identify as someone who cares about the truth and isn't attached to any particular idea, that is best.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#39

Post by bokonist »

gabrielroth wrote: post #12
gojomo wrote: post #9

Perhaps 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.

Actually, the two are much closer than you think. All major religions achieved their growth and status by becoming the ideological arm of state power. Both politics and religion are fundamentally about how people think about the rulers.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#40

Post by sayrer »

"I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity"

This essay doesn't touch on what it actually means for an idea to become part of someone's identity. I think I have a rough notion of what was intended, but understanding how it works better would be more enlightening.

The essay also attempts to separate science from things like politics and religion. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Lots of things that masqueraded as science, medicine, and rationality in the past look ridiculous to us now. In fact, history should tell us that any system of thought that looks so obviously right probably has big blind spots.

To use the example in the essay, the label "scientist" might not help you in negotiations or politics. There, you have to understand what the opposition wants in order to get things done. Identifying yourself as a scientist doesn't prevent empathy, but it can if you use that system of thought when you shouldn't.

Post reply on HN