Live data from Hacker News

Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#31
Both discussions are fine way to learn. You always learn, even from stack full of "meaningless" comments. Either you accept it or nor, makes no difference, you have learned something.

Learned to not read comments or proceed reading and absorbing other people expressions that you adopt/use willingly/unknowingly.

To decide importance, scale, seriousness or whatnot of discussion, it is up to individual and for his needs.

Some are more defensive of set value and want to preserve idea. Some give up ideas to change perspective and understanding regularly. Diversity makes it all interesting.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#33
> There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist.

I know a lot of people who would consider this wrong, and I've noticed that sometimes, this is correct. I look at things from a scientific point of view, and because of this, I have a hard time understanding and empathizing with people with a religious background in discussion on religion.

I think it would be wrong of us to consider science as a concept above the scrutiny we eagerly apply to religion and politics in this article. Who says us scientists can't be wrong on an important level about certain things?

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#35
post #33

> There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. I know a lot of people who would consider this wrong, and I've noticed that sometimes, this is correct. I look at things from a scientific point of view, and because of this, I have a hard time understanding and empathizing with people with a religious background in discussion on religion. I think it would be wrong…

I think you're missing the point here. pg's saying the scientist identity is useful here, not because of science, but because it reminds you not to take any other identities.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#37
Good essay - as all PG's are.

One critique - a scientist's identity can be in science itself (or its latest set of widely-held beliefs), which itself can also result in a essentially political/religious response wrapped up in scientific garb. I am thinking of periods of time leading up to a paradigm shift where there can be significant resistance to "where the facts lead" by those invested in defending the status quo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Rev...).

Certainly, this not the same situation as a purely political or religious issue. It is worth noting though, since everyone works off of a basic set of assumptions that are not provable. Each person has a philosophy - a practical "religion" or "political party" regardless of whether they are officially associated with any public entity or institution.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#38
post #22
post #8

> "Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion." I agree that this is how people tend to see it. But it isn't really true. Like JavaScript or auto mechanics or animal husbandry, there is indeed a threshold of expertise for expressing a meaningful opinion. The value of somebody else's commentary on political issues is pretty much directly proportional to their…

> The value of somebody else's commentary on political issues is pretty much directly proportional to their understanding of the political system and their command of objective facts. I think this is objectively wrong for the specific case of politics; unlike, say, analytical chemistry, politics has an active opinion on how each of us live our lives and can't be "left to the expert" (the latter being what the politic…

unlike, say, analytical chemistry, politics has an active opinion on how each of us live our lives and can't be "left to the expert"

That's true of computing also, though, which is why you have a lot of non-techies with opinions about computing. Even if you aren't a technologist, you will likely be impacted by technology whether you want to be or not, because it structures a large amount of daily life, at least unless you are a hermit in the mountains. From that perspective, it's perfectly reasonable for everyone to have opinions on technology. Unfortunately, as with politics, the opinions not based on any kind of understanding of how things work tend not to be as useful in figuring out how to improve them.

Ted Nelson's version of it [1] is something like: technology is too important to be left up to the techies, but if nobody but techies understands technology at all, it will by default be left up to them, because nobody else will be able to say anything sensible about it. Therefore regular people need to learn at least something about technology, enough to analyze it intelligently and make decisions for themselves. That's how I view politics as well.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Lib_/_Dream_Machines

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#39
post #4

Seems Paul "rediscovered" what Buddhism teaches us: You need to loose your ego to achieve Nirvana. With the difference that the Buddhists also tell you a method for going about this... :)

Thanks for telling what PG said in a self-refutingly hilarious way.

Also, Buddhism (Buddhists comprising it) has a huge ego itself. It should let go of its own ego soon :)

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#40
post #29

When going slightly against common sense, people tend to randomly add Chinese quotes, usually from Lao-tzu, and it is almost always a bad idea. But here this text is vibrating strongly with one of the core idea of daoism, it is impressive. It could be found more closely in Zhuangzi or even Lizi. These guys were living in a time when many have been killed for their ideas, and many had strong beliefs. Their solution fo…

Great comment.

I'm not particularly gung ho about humanity as identity. That concept has very often been used as a carrier of more or less conscious prejudices and ideals.

Some philosophers (Agamben among others) make the case that humanity traditionally defines itself as the animal which goes beyond animality. This means that humanity is not a simple essence, but a process of separation and an attempt at transcendence. Which is obviously kind of messy and complex.

Plus, what's the reason to identify as human rather than mammal, animal, or simply life?

Post reply on HN