Gerd Baumann addresses the issue of national, ethnic and religious identity in his book The Multicultural Riddle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0415922135
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
161–170 of 321 posts
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#162The sentence that strikes me as the essence of the essay: "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants." Is that true? I really don't think it is. I could definitely have a fruitful (as precise as that can be) conversation with a Christian about religion or a "proud Black man" about race in America. Or even learn a thing or two a…
Indeed, in fact, I think it might be better to have as large an identity as possible, so that the group you associate with most includes all the people you're talking to. Getting all of nature into your 'in-group' is likely to the best way to hack your visceral ethical system into something approaching an actually ethical one.
Yes, it's hard to challenge things you think are core to your identity, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and it's easier to do so if you're surrounded by people you know will care about you which ever identity you choose.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#163If people cannot argue fruitfully about questions that are part of their identity (and I agree with this premise), then it follows that for one to win politically (or convert them), the trick is not to convince people that your views are correct, but rather to convince people that their identity is threatened and that them maintaining their current identity (whatever that identity may be—and perhaps vagueness is key…
Identity is used to automate decision making, so less energy is expended on conscious thought, so less time is spent weighing pros and cons of each alternative for every daily decision. If someone is 'dog person' they have routine where they take dog for walks, with positive effects such as exercise, without having to weigh pros and cons each time it is performed. If someone is coffee person, they do not have to weig…
> If someone is 'dog person' they have routine where they take dog for walks, with positive effects such as exercise, without having to weigh pros and cons each time it is performed.
That describes a dog owner which is a much more concrete category than "dog person". Not every "dog person" actually has a dog. Even if you want a dog, your apartment might not allow dogs, or you might not have time/money to care for a dog while working.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are people seemingly so drawn to identifying themselves as anything at all? This is biologically preconditioned. We have brain wiring for identifying "Us" and "Them". BigThink put up a compilation video [1] on this topic. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14XSzWT4vI0
Ehw,no. The ego ( the prime source of identity ) only enters existence when we first encounter another. And even then, it's nature constantly differs, instigated by it's surroundings. In a nutshell, your "Us" and "Them" usually differ from mine and often mutates. Essentially, this makes divide et impera & us versus them thinking even more stupid as we humans have "theory of mind" for a trait. Unlike many animals. htt…
I'd say both you and pdamoc are right :)
For us being able to develop and change Ego and Alter, we need to have the mental capability for doing so. Which we obviously have, physically.
Both Ego and Alter can and do change heavily through life, and thus are strongly affected by culture, socialization etc. They can't change unbridled, though: There are multiple facettes of personality that are pretty stable over time (like in the Big Five model), ignoring traumata etc. And there are limits to our mental capabilities, just like there are for reasoning and other aspects of mind.
So, within the pysical borders our bodies give us, Ego and Alter can develop quite freely, heavily mediated by culture.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#165If people cannot argue fruitfully about questions that are part of their identity (and I agree with this premise), then it follows that for one to win politically (or convert them), the trick is not to convince people that your views are correct, but rather to convince people that their identity is threatened and that them maintaining their current identity (whatever that identity may be—and perhaps vagueness is key…
>Why are people seemingly so drawn to identifying themselves as anything at all?
IMO, not enough meditation or psychedelic use.
On his podcast sometime this year, Sam Harris said something to the effect of "Why am I so sure that we are capable of moving past these politics of identity? That one does not have to so strongly, or at all, identify with their gender or race or country? Because I know that one does not even have to identify with the face that stares back at them in the mirror."
This is a large part of the benefits of meditation and psychedelic use. The dissolution of the ego, the relinquishment of the seemingly strictly intertwined brain and body, the expansion of the consciousness beyond the self. Whether these experiences are actual reality or simply temporary perceptual illusions is somewhat immaterial to the benefits gained - namely a much more zen and less identity fraught mental modus operandi.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#166> What's different about religion is that people don't feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it.
This is largely a consequence of the Protestant ecclesiology that dominates Anglo-Saxon culture, which in turn dominates online discourse.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#167If people cannot argue fruitfully about questions that are part of their identity (and I agree with this premise), then it follows that for one to win politically (or convert them), the trick is not to convince people that your views are correct, but rather to convince people that their identity is threatened and that them maintaining their current identity (whatever that identity may be—and perhaps vagueness is key…
I was talking with people I consider to be very smart and intellectual. We were discussing the California propositions. They did not want to hear the specifics of the propositions. They only wanted to know which organizations were supporting which propositions. This is what political discourse is these days. Figuring out which team you're on based on what political influencers agree with you. Nobody bothers to unders…
Why is this a problem? If there's a proposition out there the wording is going to be sufficiently dense that it's not super-likely a casual observer will have a good grasp of it's actual effect, whereas if you're gay and the local LGBTQI support organizations are coming out in favor of a proposition, then it's fairly unlikely this is something you want to oppose.
There's a big difference between "this political party supports this legislation" and "this issue-focused group is supporting it".
It's putting blinkers on to pretend that legislation is not frequently titled and described in summary terms, which are quite different to the legal, social or physical specifics of what the individual clauses will do and representative organizations provide a very important function by having the time and people on hand to properly understand issues which affect the groups they represent.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#168You might not always have control over what identities you’re attributed to. For example if you are an immigrant, based on your home country, you may have an identity assigned to you by the destination society even if it isn’t factual. You might ignore it and remind yourself not to care too much about it (try to keep your identity small) but when you have a harder time finding an apartment even when you’re qualified…
Supporting a political candidate is not, in any possible way "similar" to being an immigrant or a child of immigrant parents, as a social identity.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#169The problem happens when something is your identity. That's why it is difficult to change someone's mind.
Consider someone who is praying to God all their life. And you come and tell it's a sham. Even if you provide proof - accepting that means they were wrong all their life.
This is too much too handle.
So most people resort to sticking with their random identities.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
#170Politics are _meant_ to be understood by the common person, especially in the US. The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution were intended to be understood by regular people. This is so that there wouldn't be a political class, who believes the common person needs to be ruled. Too bad we have that political class, anyway, along with regular people who believe politics should be inaccessible to regular people…
The wealthy landowner leading the revolutionary army became king, erm I mean president, after winning the war. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence became ruler a short time after him. They could have decided against being rulers, but they didn't.
To the rest of the HN community, note that they did decide against being rulers, nor did they ever act as kings.
See George Washington's retirement speech:
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page...
That's why we have a tradition of presidents only serving a maximum of two terms; which we only turned into a law when the tradition was violated.