Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

Religion (perhaps moreso historically) and especially politics are mine fields because there are so many inputs and so many outputs. That is to say almost any policy decision will affect a lot of people in a lot of different ways. He touches on this by discussing vague and definite questions, but he doesn't really explore that avenue.

For instance, consider the evaluation of how much a government program is going to cost. It doesn't matter how precisely you can answer that question because it just leads directly to other questions such as where the money will come from and what the results of the program will be. Even if the follow up questions are precise as well, they bloom out into innumerable consequences far and wide. It's not just that the bar of having an opinion is low, it's because these decisions actually affect all these people, and all in different ways. The fact that they may not have the expertise or knowledge to know the true affects and are easily manipulated by identity-appealing propaganda just exacerbates the problem, but it's not the root cause.

The more fundamental problem is that politics is a direct view into the massively interdependent organic ecosystem of large-scale human society. Even if you are the foremost expert on the implications of some political issue and your facts are indisputable, people will still (with good reason) disagree on the merits of those indisputable implications.

> "Mention every possible debate on the subject, without attempting to either offer a conclusion or a new set of arguments for any of them."

Keeping your identity small may prevent you from participating in certain arguments but it doesn't make for a good story. I'd rather hear a spirited debate between proponents of radically different ideas than bland statements that scrupulously avoid engaging anyone's identy.

The more I think about it the more ridiculous it sounds to exclude things from one's identity. An exclusive identity is not any smaller than an inclusive one--it's just identified by its exclusions. Identity is who you are and thus can be no larger or smaller than the whole of you.

I think the real argument here is one for skepticism as can been seen in the second footnote:

> "A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it."

Really?? First, I don't think biblical literalism requires a rejection of natural selection (unless that's shorthand for a naturalistic origin of life). Secondly, this statement itself seems like a religious argument in the sense that it implies scientists are somehow more detached and objective than biblical literalists.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6171593

Actually, when doing so, you can consider any opened link deserves an upvote, provided that at first glance, it is what the link title promised : it attracted your attention so may attract other people.

Nevermind if the point made in the linked article you upvoted is valid or not after a detailed review, the subject is interesting and may lead to interesting discussions - and top comments will instantly warn if the point is not valid.