Keep Your Identity Small

I think the problem isn't necessarily identity itself so much as when people react to criticism of things they identify with as if they were physical attacks on territory. Something in the animal brain feels threatened, and at that point the conversation turns into a confrontation.

I can't tell if this advice is intended for technical matters or a general sense. In real life, a person is going to have a lot of real identities (that can be actively ignored by that person, but not so easily dispensed with.) The same person might be a father, an accountant, a divorcee, an alcoholic, a cancer-survivor, a member of an ethnic group, a 45-year-old, etc, etc, and all of these will inevitably effect that person's mental state and behavior.

A relative of mine voted for BHO because she thought he would be "good for teachers". Lots of people think this way. A friend of mine loved a previous governor because he was "good for divorced fathers". Public policy is a huge subject, but people will throw away every consideration for a specific connection. People who don't play this game (or play it badly [1]) become the victims, rather than the benefactors, of a massive bureaucracy.

The advice is, in fact, really bad advice (if intended generally). It amounts to: Don't stick up for yourself.

[1] The two examples I mentioned were playing it very badly, for instance.

I think that the point of the article is not to "Keep Your Identity Small", but to not be a jerk about it. "Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic." People's actions are not the result of their beliefs, but themselves. The topic of conflict, religion (one of your examples), is only the medium. To rephrase, people decide when to fight, the people's beliefs are only a push. With enough discipline, a hardcore religious person can avoid a religious war.

> Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

From what I can tell, Mr. Graham, you make the assumption that identity ('labels') itself is bad and should be minimized. I disagree. Identity, whatever the kind, serves the purpose of providing a person a sense of self. In other words, identity helps create a sense of belonging and protection. Forming an identity is like entering a family.

* Whether that family is good or not is subjective.

Mr. Graham, using your religion metaphor, a religion does provide many useful outcomes. After the Civil War and into Reconstruction, there was massive economic turmoil. There was a large debt to be paid, the sharecropping 'trap', the Financial Crisis of 1837. During that time, a lot of churches were formed. Essentially, the purpose of those churches is to provide emotional relief from the horrid state of the Union. These churches were a coping mechanism for the people. Generally, they worked. People formed a religious identity with the people they were with. Religion provided comfort. Identity is not always bad.

As a political example, in 1860, a party known as the Populist Party was formed. It was composed of farmers and the Grange. These people formed this 'Populist Party' identity because they all faced common problems: long hours, a cycle of debt, and control by monopolies. In a short span of time, the spread their identity and 4 million people joined the movement. They promoted the idea of a 8 hour work week, direct federal loans, and graduated tax rates. Many of these ideas are implemented today. Political identity provided people a voice. Their identity is beneficial to many people today.

* This came from my U.S. History notes from class.

Mr. Graham, I agree with you that social identity causes many problems, but it also provides many benefits. Please do not dismiss identity as completely harmful.

I am sorry if I offended anyone. Downvote me if you wish.

To be means to be something - ie have and identity. Your identity depends upon what you are and what you make of yourself. If you seek your identity from others, then conflicting discussions of religion and politics can be seen as an assault on your identity.

If you are self defined, you prefer that others see you as you are. However, if they don't, its their loss not yours. You are still what you are.

If you are other defined, you have no identity of your own. You have taken it piecemeal from those around you. Your identity has been diminished to a singularity that can be attacked by a single conflicting opinion. What you are becomes deeply threatened.

Both participants need to identify strongly. If two guys strongly identify over the same woman there will be trouble with any talk about her. People fight over sporting teams, but you can ask a fan about the season without conflict if you don't identify with the sport.