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

51–60 of 176 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#51

Post by burritas »

It seems to be the thing nowadays to be preoccupied with the notion of your own identity, and I can't help but feel like it's just navel gazing. Maybe it's social media and the culture of self promotion, but I find it pretty hollow and uninteresting.

I have a young kid in my family that's fixated with gender and sexuality and they said one day "I just want to get diagnosed so I know what I am," to which I said "It's not what you are that's important, it's what you want to do." That seemed to be an epiphany for them.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#52

Post by mindslight »

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.…

> A mental conditioning fogs judgement. "Identifications" are mental conditionings that make you lose intellectual freedom.

Freedom and structure are always in contention as yin-yang, and you're completely ignoring the benefits structure can bring. I'd guess OP finds a lot of value in labeling themselves "queer", in that a lot of things that were ambiguous or confusing become clearer.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#53

Post by wankle »

"If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible."

No thank you; I do not want to live in a passionless society. Unlike the claims of the article, people can and do have reasoned discussions about both politics and religion.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#54

Post by kethinov »

strken wrote: post #9
kethinov wrote: post #2

Since Paul wrote that, people have made so many more things part of their identity, including JavaScript which he points out in the essay was not a particularly identity-charged topic in 2009. With the rise of the frameworks, it has become an identity-charged topic with JS devs now segregated into tribes that insist on using their preferred framework for every webapp they build. It's not about assessing the right too…

I think with JS frameworks, it's more a case of moving house using the hatchback parked in your driveway, instead of going out and buying a brand new truck. Or hammering tent pegs with the side of a rock instead of bringing a hammer with you. There's a cost to buying and learning new tools.

That would be an easier argument to accept if people were more honest about it. Or honest with themselves about it and more self-aware that that's really what it's about: not wanting to learn new things or the perception (real or otherwise) of lacking the time to. But too often instead it seems like people rationalize the desire to avoid learning new things by making pseudo arguments that the thing they already like is the best option when in reality it's mostly just a post hoc justification of a preconceived notion.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#55

Post by fourfoursix »

ryanklee wrote: post #15
fourfoursix wrote: post #7

Quoted post unavailable.

Holy moly. People cannot escape cognitive biases even by knowing about cognitive biases. This includes you. It seems that you think you have somehow transcended this condition. This is just another bias. And this particular one is maybe the most insidious of all because it convinces you you're better than most on a fundamental level and protects you from introspection and criticism. Seek humility.

How so. I simply said, "consider the possibility." Because scientifically. These are possibilities. Realistic ones in fact. I directly picked them for their controversy. I am aware of the direction they run counter to the norms. Are you aware of your biases? Are you aware how inline with cultural norms and biases that your opinions are?

At times, many of these things weren't controversial. How do you know that the current thinking is correct? Based off what science? Or is it bias?

HN isn't better. It's biased.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#56

Post by j-bos »

hypoqtech wrote: post #47

> 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 kn…

There's plenty of context for Roman battles and those discussions rarely degenerate into shouting matches, compare with [insert modern conflict here]. Even for today's conflicts, many of the shouters demonstrate a personal lack of context.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#57

Post by motohagiography »

I wonder if people ask themselves, "am I a good artifact of criticism?"

Obectively, your identity is a set of meaningless reflections you have cohered into a narrative that centralizes your subjective experience. Subjectively, your identity is a story you protect and use a constant process of retroactive continuity to moralize and preserve it.

They are both artifacts of language, which is not a substrate or the real that persists when you are gone. Your identity is chosen. The value of an axiom like spiritual faith is that your choice can come from the reflection of something objective, persistent, and compassionate, instead of the reflections and artifacts of the language and meaning you have been presented with - often as a yoke. Be what you choose, not what may have happened, and especially not what someone who wants something from you tells you.

If your identity is the artifact of dialectic materialism, you have already accepted that you are a subject, working off an indenture in the name of earthly material justice, in pursuit of redemption from an imaginary critic who will never yield. I believe we have choice. Let one thing into your identity, and the rest becomes obvious, imo.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#58

Post by mch82 »

Alternate advice: practice skills of listening, observing, empathy, dialog, sharing, building. These are the skills you will need to deal with people.

People can have a difficult time talking about religion, politics, and programming languages because these issues affect their lives. When you say something that threatens another person’s life, expect a strong reaction to that threat. The key to having productive discussions about topics like these is to start with empathy, look for and diffuse threats, and seek a future state that creates space for the needs and goals of all stakeholders.

Edit: also, life is a lot more fun when approached with curiosity. Stay curious.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#59

Post by mdp2021 »

mindslight wrote: post #52
mdp2021 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> A mental conditioning fogs judgement. "Identifications" are mental conditionings that make you lose intellectual freedom. Freedom and structure are always in contention as yin-yang, and you're completely ignoring the benefits structure can bring. I'd guess OP finds a lot of value in labeling themselves "queer", in that a lot of things that were ambiguous or confusing become clearer.

> ignoring

Yes I was - I was focusing on a different side.

Logic. "X brings fog" and "X brings clarity" are not contradictory, in a normal paraconsistent logic.

But note: if A uses X as a mental experiment for intellectual development, detachment is there: that is the opposite of "identification".

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#60

Post by fourfoursix »

ethanbond wrote: post #11
fourfoursix wrote: post #7

Quoted post unavailable.

“I am observing from an objective position” is the surest sign of a deeply compromised thinker.

Except that, that quotation is a fabrication. It was never stated by me, nor was it stated in the article.

It is also logically flawed. If there exists in this world someone who was truly objective. Would they know they're objective?

Knowing if oneself is objective or not is in itself an objective calculation. If that person was truly objective, then the answer is yes, he would know. But I get your point, there are many who think they are "objective" but they are not.

Mind you, one test for objectivity is to see whether your thoughts are the result of parroting cultural norms or if they arise from objective thinking. If your thoughts are objective there is no rule that such thoughts should imitate cultural norms. One will notice that ones opinions are "different" so to say.

My points pass those tests. It doesn't mean I am "objective" but it is evidence for it.

Post reply on HN