Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep Your Identity Small

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 267 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#181

Post by ewelfare »

f3lix wrote: post #165
mattjaynes wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great essay and discussion. I think there's another variable strongly influencing how "identity" behaves in the wild. Consider the examples of Nelson Mandela and Ghandi. Both men very strongly identified with the cause of their people, but despite that identity had an amazingly noble approach to their oppressors. Horrible atrocities were committed by their foes, yet they reached out to them with grace - both during t…

Mandela founded the ANC's armed wing (Umkhonto we Sizwe). This armed wing was responsible for its fair share of atrocities such as: - Planting landmines that killed people indiscriminately in rural areas - Torture and executions esp. in foreign camps - Burning people that worked with the apartheid government alive (necklacing). Mandela's wife killed a 14 year old boy without spending a day in jail (Stompie Sipei) - C…

Yes, Mandela is a great example of someone who was able to change his ways from hate and violence to understanding and compassion. If he can do it, I guess there is hope for online flamers and trolls ;)

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#182

Post by GHFigs »

yters wrote: post #127
tobib wrote: post #73

I disagree that the more labels someone has the dumber they make you. And I strongly disagree in that. I know people that believe in almost nothing. Not in a religion, not a programming language. Sure there won't ever be a religious argument. But also probably no discussion at all because there is nothing to talk about with them. I have a lot of believes and disbelieves but I still consider myself able to talk about…

Yes, and pg also doesn't observe that a person's identity tends to be strongly tied to things that provide for their welfare. For the common person, religion and politics do this. For the elite, not so much. But, say if they are programmers, they can have a strong identity tie to their editor (vi vs emacs) or language, since they depend on these things to prosper in life. This is not merely an unthinking thing on the…

The problem is not the belief, but that strongly identifying with something can render you blind to (among other things) whether it really is providing for your welfare or not.

(Historical examples abound, but pg's example of someone who died over an argument about two brands of pickup truck is apt. What benefits might be experienced by the belief are outweighed by the evident risks involved in identifying with it so closely.)

This is how persuasion works--appeal to a person's identity and you can convince the mind of almost anything. If your interest lies in thinking as freely as possible, then "keeping your identity small" is a good strategy.

If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course.

Example? I wasn't aware that changing one's mind required any resources.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#183

Post by Tachyon »

I'm not sure a biblical literalist would necessarily reject natural selection -- the fact that species change over time to adapt to their environments can be proven through direct observational evidence, not just inference based on fossil records.

She might object to the thought that unguided processes such as natural selection produced all life on Earth, however, and may even correctly infer a certain amount of philosophical bias / involvement of some people's identities in their arguments for such a thought.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#184

Post by emmett »

The question this raises for me is, what habits of mind are important to keep your downsize your identity? One idea is suggested in the essay: if you find yourself thinking, I'm an X, but tolerant of Y, that's a warning sign. Any others?

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#185

Post by kirse »

pg wrote: post #92
astine wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that statement bothered me to. People seeming to assume that just because a vocal minority of a group believe something, that all members of the group believe the same thing. This especially includes people who's expressed ideology hopes to avoid prejudice and bigotry. Thought I don't think PG, really thinks all Evangelicals are YECs. at least I hope he doesn't.

My mistake. I changed it to "a biblical literalist."

My mistake. I changed it to "a biblical literalist."

Whether it was intentional or not, your [2] paragraph there seems to reveal part of your own identity with the scientific community, primarily because of the way it was phrased. 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.

Of course the literalist does this because his world-view does not permit it, but this sophistry ignores the larger picture that both the scientist and the literalist hold equally irrational worldviews -- one in scientific naturalism and one in the Bible + scientific empiricism.

Both world-views are far from grounded in complete rationality and both world-views function on powerful assumptions that hardly qualify either individual as completely rational, a distinct difference from how your paragraph depicts the two individuals. I think robg states it best here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=396215

Of course, I am a Christian and have my passionate identity tied to this discussion, but it was interesting how you chose to portray the scientist as rational and the religious believer as irrational. Was that intentional, or was it a little bit of personal identity peeking through in your writing?

This is not my attempt to "read into" your writing, but given this context of personal identity (which we know both consciously and subconsciously shapes everything we do), I was interested to know if your writing here was shaped by your own identity. I'm pretty confident it was, given that you're definitely not trying to deceive anyone here, but you are certainly providing a slanted view on reality.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#186

Post by billswift »

busterdog wrote: post #162
dragos_stefan wrote: post #159

A wonderful essay and truly a joy to read. This is very close to some stuff that I read in Gurdjieff's writings some time ago, and it's the first time I see the concept of "identification as a bad thing" outside of those writings. Thanks for this insightful take on a very interesting subject for me.

Doesn't not having an a lot of identities give you an identity of someone who doesn't have a lot of identities? Are you not looking down on those who think they have the Truth by saying I have the Truth and the Truth is that identities don't matter? I find people in that group the most most smug and intolerant of all. If I think that vi is better than emacs, and you say the opposite we can discuss it. I can agree wit…

I have the Truth and the Truth is you don't matter (to me).

What matters is what works. What editor you use doesn't matter, use whatever works best for you, but don't identify with it. What car you drive doesn't matter, drive whatever you like, but don't identify with it. In very few instances is one set of beliefs objectively better than another, so don't identify with a belief that is not.

Religion versus atheism is such a case; faith (belief in the absence of evidence) makes you stupid.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#187

Post by f3lix »

ewelfare wrote: post #181
f3lix wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandela founded the ANC's armed wing (Umkhonto we Sizwe). This armed wing was responsible for its fair share of atrocities such as: - Planting landmines that killed people indiscriminately in rural areas - Torture and executions esp. in foreign camps - Burning people that worked with the apartheid government alive (necklacing). Mandela's wife killed a 14 year old boy without spending a day in jail (Stompie Sipei) - C…

Yes, Mandela is a great example of someone who was able to change his ways from hate and violence to understanding and compassion. If he can do it, I guess there is hope for online flamers and trolls ;)

The saying goes: one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. I made this account especially because I knew I will be regarded as a “troll” by some.

The real world is unfortunately not entirely black and white. I never said that what Mandela fought for was wrong - I said that the way it was done was wrong. Unfortunately most people spend time on the Apartheid era's misdeeds but ignore that of the liberation movement.

I said he should use Desmond Tutu as a fine example. Tutu fought for the same thing as Mandala (equal rights) but he did it in a non-violent way. He denounced violence and terrorism on both sides (he even intervened once risking his own life to prevent a crowd from necklacing a person).

You will also notice above that I recommended moving off from the politics topic because it is unnecessarily divisive and not really the focus point of YCNews.

EDIT: Why I also think that Tutu makes an excellent example is that his actions (such as the non-violence he promotes) stems from his religious identity. This is clearly the case in which a person's identity is a good attribute.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#188

Post by neilk »

mattmaroon wrote: post #151
pg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are people much more religious than when you were a kid? Yes. It was very noticeable when I went back to Pittsburgh recently. When I was a kid, people went to church, but it didn't spill over into everyday life. They did it more as a matter of form. Now people's conversation is filled with religious references. Someone who 30 years ago would have said "we have two children" now says "we've been blessed with two child…

If you believe the small smattering of polls cited in this Wikipedia article people have actually become less religious over the last 10 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#B... They moved from 94% believing in God to 73%. Might just be the small sample or differences in questions asked though.

It's a complex question. Joe Bageant, author of Deer Hunting With Jesus, can be a good explainer of evangelical religion in America to the rest of us. He asserts that there have always been people who are this deeply religious in about this proportion, but the difference is that now they are a political constituency and a valuable demographic for advertisers. Perhaps it's very simply that culture isn't controlled by the city anymore, nor by the three big TV networks who all had similarly liberal urbanites in control.

If I were to guess I'd say that what's on the decline is nominal religiosity. Those who don't believe, don't worship, in greater numbers. At the same time, among those who do believe, there's been an assertion of cultural power since the 1980s or so.

No data here, just an observation from someone about the same as as pg.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#189

Post by neilk »

Create wrote: post #139

I think pg is entirely missing the point: it isn't about identity. It is about [exercising] power, and its subjects. Identity, like technology (mentioned javascript) is just a tool for it. He might like http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2733964 (it is available in several languages) -- it explains the obvious: religious wars are in fact not about religion, neither identity. To most, even believing people, it does no…

I think pg's topic was more inspired by observing online discussions rather than actual religious wars.

That said, your observations are not contradictory. If clashes and intolerance arise naturally because of self-identification with religious positions, how much more convenient for a aggressive ruler to exploit that as a pretext for war. The same has been done for nationalism, for at least a few centuries.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small

#190

Post by gravitycop »

mynameishere wrote: post #79
gravitycop wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reaching criticality is a normal goal for the operators of a controlled nuclear reactor (nuclear power reactor unit; research reactor; etc.). A reactor that has reached criticality is usually one that is operating normally. For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22initial+criticality%22 The JRR-4, which reached initial criticality in 1965, had contenued to aperate safely until 1996 using uranium of a high conce…

Sure, and the result of that "normality" is furiously boiling water.

the result of [core criticality] is furiously boiling water.

Not in a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor If a nuclear reactor's core is not critical, that nuclear reactor is not on.

Post reply on HN