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

Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#41

Post by gardenhedge »

Kye wrote: post #28
gardenhedge wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not everyone is labeled by default. Labels are used to describe or identify a person or group, and not everyone uses or identifies with labels. Some people may choose to use labels to describe themselves or their experiences, while others may not feel that any existing labels accurately reflect who they are. It is ultimately up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to use labels to describe themse…

>> "No, not everyone is labeled by default." Boy, girl, man, woman. Success, failure, virgin, slut, ice queen. Creep. I'm sure you've labeled others with at least one and possibly been labeled with one you weren't happy about that didn't fit your identity. There are so many more and you use them without thinking.

You've taken this discussion off course by discussing given labels.

If you decide to self label as a 'creep' or 'success' then it's relevant to this thread's discussion. If people just decide to label you as a 'creep' or 'success' then it's not relevant.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#42

Post by gardenhedge »

Kye wrote: post #27
gardenhedge wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, in theory, make a label out of not labeling yourself but that isn't what we're talking about. I can see how labels are useful for finding community. One potential negative of using labels to find a community is that labels can be exclusive. For example, a label like "LGBTQ+" may exclude people who do not identify as part of that community, even if they have similar experiences or interests. This can create…

LGBTQ+ (and variations) are more category than label. We combine our powers because we're all too tiny to deal with all the labels and violence foisted upon us alone. Whether you can choose one of the labels is a matter of debate within the category. For most of us, it's like breathing air for the first time: "oh, I'm not alone in this. Other people feel this way, and they've fought all these battles so I don't have…

LGBTQ+ can be used as a self-imposed label. Why not?

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#43

Post by altdataseller »

mdp2021 wrote: post #35
mgrthrow wrote: post #30

Doesn't land for me. I'm queer, my identity isn't huge, but it does include queer. That alone is enough to make some folks want to do violence to me (I have first hand experience with this). Telling me to "stop being x" is a bad vibe when x is something intrinsic about me AND the anti x folks hate me just for existing. I just want to live my life.

The point of PG is that to properly reason about X you have to look at it "from outside". A mental conditioning fogs judgement. "Identifications" are mental conditionings that make you lose intellectual freedom. An example from other authors: > For instance, modern education often does much damage when young students are taught dubious political notions and then enthusiastically push these notions on the rest of us.…

Reminds me of Eckhart Tolle’s themes too such as “you are not your story”

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#44

Post by darkerside »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #20
gardenhedge wrote: post #14

Not labeling myself was something I figured out at 15/16. One thing I've never figured out it why people label themselves.

Isn’t “someone who doesn’t label oneself whereas other people do” a label? :)

It's like tolerance of everything except intolerance.

Does that make you intolerant, ot is it semantic wordplay used to confuse and befuddled?

Edit: Just noticed, PG said it better, unsurprisingly. FTA:

> There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn't commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a biblical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he's committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#45

Post by hoosieree »

mgrthrow wrote: post #30

Doesn't land for me. I'm queer, my identity isn't huge, but it does include queer. That alone is enough to make some folks want to do violence to me (I have first hand experience with this). Telling me to "stop being x" is a bad vibe when x is something intrinsic about me AND the anti x folks hate me just for existing. I just want to live my life.

The author may be suffering from a form of blub paradox when it comes to how he identifies, which I would assume include white, male, rich, smart, founder, and writer.

It's easy for him to discard "lesser" identities like "javascript programmer" because that doesn't cost him anything.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#46

Post by imchillyb »

Identity is not 'what I do', but 'who I am.'

'Who I am' does not include tangents such as what programming language I utilize.

'Who I am' speaks to the intrinsic nature of me. What my core being considers unalterable and unchanging specifics.

Most of the topics here in this thread do not speak to that.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#47

Post by hypoqtech »

> For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't.

Might this not be because we don't have sufficient information on Bronze Ages battles to know the context behind them? Whereas in a relatively modern-day battle we'll know about the primary aggressor, their rationale, etc. which are all a basis for further discussion.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#48

Post by hypoqtech »

narag wrote: post #34
mgrthrow wrote: post #30

Doesn't land for me. I'm queer, my identity isn't huge, but it does include queer. That alone is enough to make some folks want to do violence to me (I have first hand experience with this). Telling me to "stop being x" is a bad vibe when x is something intrinsic about me AND the anti x folks hate me just for existing. I just want to live my life.

I take he's talking about ideas. Being queer, as I understand it, is not an idea but a fact, like being six feet tall or having blue eyes.

I'm not sure it is a fact, I mean, these days there are heterosexual people who call themselves queer.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#49

Post by mdp2021 »

hoosieree wrote: post #45
mgrthrow wrote: post #30

Doesn't land for me. I'm queer, my identity isn't huge, but it does include queer. That alone is enough to make some folks want to do violence to me (I have first hand experience with this). Telling me to "stop being x" is a bad vibe when x is something intrinsic about me AND the anti x folks hate me just for existing. I just want to live my life.

The author may be suffering from a form of blub paradox when it comes to how he identifies, which I would assume include white, male, rich, smart, founder, and writer. It's easy for him to discard "lesser" identities like "javascript programmer" because that doesn't cost him anything.

> which I would assume include

Wrong assumption. We do not necessarily "identify". All those terms in that list can be fully avoided as identifications. No, it is not normal to be "identified" with any of that.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#50

Post by mdp2021 »

hypoqtech wrote: post #48
narag wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take he's talking about ideas. Being queer, as I understand it, is not an idea but a fact, like being six feet tall or having blue eyes.

I'm not sure it is a fact, I mean, these days there are heterosexual people who call themselves queer.

> who call themselves

In which sense? Because 'queer' means "eccentric" - many would describe as that. For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous".

Incidentally: the queer use of 'queer' predates that of 'gay' (just a piece of trivia).

Post reply on HN