A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way an evangelical Christian is committed to rejecting it.
I disagree, I'm an evangelical Christian and I don't reject it.
Keep Your Identity Small
61–70 of 267 posts
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#62Perhaps some day, the English language will have just one word for politics and religion.
Well, there is one word for something that comprises much of both: ideology.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't argue against religion with logic or facts, if that were possible religion would have died a long time ago. As far as everyone is concerned, all opinions pretty much are equally valid, whether they actually are or not doesn't seem to matter.
One can argue against (a) religion with logic and facts. With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.) With facts: for example geological/fossil evidence can be used to argue against creationism. (The best one can do in trying to put forward 'facts' is to put forward what is well supported by the available evidence, and better supported than known alternatives. So, here for ex…
With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)
I've always found it a bad idea to pretend to be an expert in someone else's religion. Pointing out contradictions in someone else's religion 99.9% of the time is just going to make you sound very ignorant as to how people interpret the things that you find at first glance contradictory.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#64A technical note about his note [1]. pg says, When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical , but he probably means "like a core going super critical", which is when a chain reaction goes on at an increasing rate (i.e. what you need for a nuclear explosion). Critical is an equilibrium (i.e the self-sustaining condition, as used for power generation). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
Hmm. I could change it. But are you sure it wouldn't be hypercorrect to phrase it that way? Isn't going critical a kind of shorthand for going supercritical, because in practice any situation that produces the first is going to produce the second? Edit: Actually I think criticality is the right metaphor. It's a change in state from what preceded it. That's the important part, not the resulting explosion. (Arguably th…
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 concentration of 93% [...]
Unit 1 reached initial criticality on March 8, 1988 and went into commercial operation on August 25. Unit 2 reached initial criticality on March 12, ...
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#65> all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.
pg at his best; a truth I've known without ever Knowing, expressed clearly and concisely.
> 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.
This part, though, is totally and completely false. I contend that it only seems this way to pg because the scientific spirit is so deeply integrated into himself that he can no longer see it.
And this points to a deeper part of the message, for me; everyone has these perspectives, they're a part of the way you choose the world. Strive to minimize them, but accept the ones you have, don't pretend that they don't exist, and certainly don't try to justify them by saying that they exist as reality.
Alternatively, become a buddhist and spend your entire life with the goal of emptying yourself of these lenses to see humanity as essentially undifferentiated from everything.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. I could change it. But are you sure it wouldn't be hypercorrect to phrase it that way? Isn't going critical a kind of shorthand for going supercritical, because in practice any situation that produces the first is going to produce the second? Edit: Actually I think criticality is the right metaphor. It's a change in state from what preceded it. That's the important part, not the resulting explosion. (Arguably th…
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…
[deleted]
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#67I think I concur that in educated discussions Identity does not help, but I have been thinking through the importance of identity for a while. I think in many situations identity gives you strength. I have an identity within Y Combinator, with my family, with people that went to my University, in the countries I have lived in etc. These fragments of my identity all give me strength, it means I would help people out t…
You're right. That's why I was careful to qualify it with "all other things being equal." In general identity gives you strength while making you stupid. This can sometimes be a good trade, especially in stressful situations. E.g. I think this is one reason people in the US are so much more religious than they were when I was a kid. People who 30 years ago might have been skeptical of preachers are now thinking that…
"identity gives you strength while making you stupid"
Couldn't something similar be said about any emotional response. In that emotional responses give you something but are inherently irrational.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#68Great post. It strikes me that even when we try to avoid labels for ourselves, sometimes they are imposed by others. And sometimes a further step happens beyond the labels: consequences are imposed, depending on the labels.
This kind of imposition from the outside can sometimes leak into ones self-identity. Hyphenated Americans, for example, often start out as thinking of themselves as just Americans, but then discover that their experience is different, and they have a shared peer group of other people who have had the same experiences, because of what is imposed on them by others. And then, we blame them for calling themselves -American, when actually it was not necessarily their own doing.
Given such, it's also not hard to see why some people will decide that they would prefer to wear a label (atheist/theist/gay/Asian/Bush Supporter/whatever) as a badge of pride. Not saying this is or is not an ideal state of affairs, just that it's understandable.
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#69Hey pg, here is at least one situation that entirely backs up your theory. I'm not a Freemason, but one of the rules of Freemasonry is that politics and religion are NOT to be discussed while within the lodge. This is done in part so that no mason will have to justify their personal interpretation of either (and thus their identity) to any other mason while in the lodge. Perhaps they were onto something (apart from g…
The notion that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion is a staple bit of folk wisdom dispensed by parents, grandparents, various other elders, and barkeeps the world over.
The notion that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion is a staple bit of folk wisdom dispensed by parents, grandparents, various other elders, and barkeeps the world over.
...but it's not a universal piece of folk wisdom. In fact it's the significant minority
When you consider 68% of the world of the world is composed under the belief structures of the 3 primary religions (christianity, islam, hinduism) and religion is primarily passed from the parent to the child, I find that parents (and so by inference, grandparents) suggesting that it is impolite to discuss religion a hard pill to swallow.
When you take almost all other religions into account, Non Religious people account for around 21% of the world's population, with some of those are agnostic people (like myself).
Re: Keep Your Identity Small
#70Until I moved to San Francisco ten years ago my identity was wrapped up in my home region of my home state. SF was where I finally let it go. I can perfectly remember the moment I realized I could. How exhilarating that was! And it started a landslide. I'll bet I don't have 10% the identity I did back then.
(It helped that I had long before figured out that when people speak of "X pride" or "Proud to be X", it means that X sucks. Say this without laughing: "Proud to be a physicist at Lawrence Livermore". Then try googling "Harvard pride". Hmm, I didn't even know there was a Harvard, Illinois.)
This is such a ridiculously brilliant essay. How in the hell does Paul keep doing this? I've been living this exact strategy for years and even advising people to do it too. Yet for me it remained a jumble of half-considered thoughts. (Please don't tell me I should reconsider having "smart guy" within my identity.) Another triumph, Paul. Thank you.