231–240 of 267 posts
Hot debates do happen in market as well, but they are rarely a problem as all opinions get realized as long as they prove demand that they can fulfill.
God said: "I am who I am". This is actually what the name Jahwe means.
This would keep God's identity the smallest, hence making Him the smartest.
On the other hand, some do not crave a quiet life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It reads as if the scientist is completely and entirely committed to the rational, while cleverly mentioning that those identifying with religion clearly toss the evidence out of the window. I believe the scientific community is defined by complete commitment to the rational. Sure, there are people who claim to be scientists, but the scientific method is an exercise in pure rationality. As well, generally speaking,…
I believe the scientific community is defined by complete commitment to the rational. Sure, there are people who claim to be scientists, but the scientific method is an exercise in pure rationality. You would do best to rephrase that statement in far less concrete terms, because scientists (more specifically -- "scientists" trying to answer "why" and "how" our existence came about) are hardly playing in the arena of…
I'm thinking that people sometimes enjoy being right about something. They enjoy having an opinion that has merit and that can benefit others. Sometimes expressing an opinion can be just to 'one-up' the guy who is castigating some poor bloke in a forum who failed to articulate his position well and who is now being bullied. Sometimes the expression of an opinion can be meant to come to the defense of another. Perhaps it is those unspoken elements of human communication, the binding and unbinding of groups, that are being transgressed, or which we mistakenly believe so, and not our sense of identity, which gradually raises one's ire when their opinion is being criticized, tested or what have you.
One of the reasons we communicate our positions is to ally ourselves with others. We find common ground and can then feel apart of. People get upset when they risk losing this common ground. When the matter is not so crucial, such as the preference for an x or y programming language, their chances of losing affinity with the group is less and so they tend to be more easy going about the expression and consideration of their /preferences. That's my 2 cents :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the popular level, yes. But there are other concerns, like the practical basis of marriage rights for procreation and that it is contrary to the American experiment to mandate gay marriage for all states.
1. There is no practical basis of marriage rights for procreation. This is proved by the prevelance of men and women who remain married without having children, and the vast numbers of unmarried parents. 2. I wish that you would define what you mean by "contrary to the American experiment." No one is advocating gay marriage for all states. Many people are demanding their own state government recognize civil marriage…
For 2 I am wrong and uninformed then. If it is only a state by state issue and it is supported by the majority of a state, then I don't see a problem.
However, I have to fundamentally disagree with the idea that identity makes one "stupid." When I was a teenager, I had very little in the way of identity, but I was very stupid. :-)
There are many parts of a person's identity. Some are chosen, while others are factual. I can't change who my parents are, what my race is, or where I was born. But they do make up who I am and who you are. We cannot ignore them, and trying to do so causes other problems later in life.
Chosen aspects of one's identity are neither bad nor "stupid." Rather, the reasons people incorporate and cling to certain identities may be, and are the root of the problems you describe.
Example: Atheism vs. Religion.
Electing to identifying with one's self with either of these groups does not [inherently] make one smarter, dumber, stronger, or weaker. What's important is _why_ one chooses to identify with that group.
Does one choose religion to fill a hole in their life or perhaps a fear of death?
If so, then having that identity (hopefully) adds value to, and makes them happier; that's fantastic! But that reason also means when another - opposing identity - challenges their religion, they are threatening that happiness. Defense ensues.
Does one choose atheism in order to feel smarter or to be different/non-conformist?
If so, then when someone with a religious identity tries to talk with them about it, their intellect or uniqueness is suddenly threatened. Defense ensues.
Yet there are many people who have identified themselves as religious, and others as atheist, who are perfectly capable of having very pleasant conversations about life, the universe, and everything, together, for many hours. Why is that? Because their identity wasn't chosen to fill a void, to provide direction, or convince them of something. Instead, it was because that is what made the most sense to them. They are still excited to learn more, and are capable of stating "I don't know [everything]."
Identity is a very _good_ thing. Just be sure you choose your identity for the right reasons.
Jeff M.
In fact, Paul Graham's set-up is flawed. If the amount of money a policy will cost has a definite answer then there won't be long discussion of how much a policy will cost. Instead the long discussion will be whether it's worth the cost. But if the everyone basically agrees that the policy of clear-cutting the Amazonian rain forest and burning all the wood is not only not worth the cost but a bad idea, then it won't spur long discussions either.
The flaw is rather basic. Paul Graham is conflating politics with specific issues in the political domain. Tsk tsk!
I believe Paul cut all the way to the core and stopped one step short of the finishing line.
Let’s ask the obvious question and think about it: So, what do you do next?
If you were to decide to keep your identity small, how would you go about it?
The key is NOT in identity size.
In fact, the essay is not about IDENTITY at all. (Paul commits some equivocation in discussing identity, and let’s face it: it’s tough not to:)
The essay is about limiting beliefs that disserve progress.
The strategy is to remove unwanted parts of your identity so you can adopt different "identities" at will.
The tactic is to remove limiting beliefs directed to unwanted goals (all beliefs are goal-directed) and adopt different beliefs as an act of will.
The approach is to practice disassociation.
I’m glad you’re with me so far:) Keep on reading, it gets better.
So, one may ask, what is a Belief? A conviction of a "truth of a statement" or "reality of a fact"
How about Conviction? =an assertion brought by argument to assent. You are convinced of things to be real. You think "this is it"
So, where do these things, these little personality components come from? Where do beliefs come from?
We seem to be born with fear of falling and fear of loud noises. All other boundary conditions seem to be learned, and most learning happens before you turn 6.
By the time you’re 6 most limiting beliefs are set.
You may see parents argue about time, money, space and believe "scarcity is normal"
You may see person screaming the loudest winning and believe "anger gets results"
You get my drift. This is where beliefs come from.
They are mental constructs. They are goal-directed, and therefore useful as long as the goals are still desired.
Imagine the goal was to become smarter and have a fruitful conversation (or to experience half-hour thunderous orgasms...hey, I'm just sayin:)
What if we were to imagine we can remove beliefs, change them, or add new ones as an act of will?
What if beliefs are temporary, arbitrary ways of seeing the world? Merely a temporary, arbitrary way of treating something as though it was true or a fact.
What if beliefs were NOT a part of your identity? Better yet, what if you needn’t to define identity at all to examine and manipulate beliefs?
I believe Paul means to encourage us experimenting with this Alternative, Dissociated Belief.
Let’s call this ADbelief.
Let’s leave out judgments whether it is good/bad, familiar/unfamiliar me/not me, and follow the path.
Now, if ADbelief is a temporary, arbitrary useful assertion, then what is ADconviction? =one of these arbitrary assertions that is held at a level BELOW conscious examination.
So, if we were to imagine having thunderously orgasmic AND fruitful conversations, then it may involve Dropping Goal-directed Belief/Conviction pairs and Adopting ADgoal-directed ADbelief/ADconviction pairs. (you can imagine Goal-ADgoal distinction might be: something you simultaneously don’t have and desire when you’re If you were to do that, you may notice an effective approach would involve dissociation: 1.Examine what Belief/Conviction pairs get you (each gets you something), and whether you still need/deserve that
2.Harvest ADgoals, adopt matching ADbeliefs/ADconvictions
3.Skip countless ritualistic elements, go directly to the effect
Skipping rituals requires generating stimulus in a state where your brain mistakes it as direct sensory input.
Generating such stimulus requires practicing dissociation: stepping back from the reality that is happening by setting aside the sheer mass of sensory input coming in, right now.
You may have experienced this when you travel alone to a place where most things you know and believe to be true are false (for westerners, asia or middle east would do).
Recall an experience where there is nothing else to relate to, except that which you brought yourself. Virtually all the "identity" baggage you carry with yourself is not there. Anything that you bring is there because YOU chose to carry along.
Aren’t you smarter in that place?
Hmmmm...just a thought:) Cheers.
Ammo
P.S.1: I’m seeking co-founders or to join a start-up. I can perform or otherwise get done all none-coding tasks with a flair: fund/find money, distill PrematureDesignChoice-free stories from market, write pseudo code, design attractive simple UI/UX, test, schmooze, influence, attract partners, sell, close deals etc.
I PREFER consumer-facing technologies that extend upon an unexpected success (Let’s generalize Netflix challenge) or unexpected failure with the demographic wind in the sail (Yes, I’m talking baby boomers: never before the 50+age cohort dominated US discretional spending. Think about it: very soon $4 of $10 will be spent by a Boomer and it will last 10+ years).
You must be an honorable person(s) of great taste, with a deep respect for reality and healthy amount of skepticism towards the impossible (I will show you things that you thought were ABSOLUTELY impossible).
It would also help if you smell nice, enjoy good red wine and simple delicious food.
P.S.2: If you read this far thinking "this makes sense" I feel we should talk:)
P.S.3: Yes Paul, I'd LOVE to:)