
Keep your Identity Small (2009) - hvo
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
======
tendicular
I think when he talks about "identity" what he really means is unquestioning
allegiances, preventing purely merit-based objective discussions on some
issues. IOW when you have an angle in it, when you're in a discussion not to
get to the truth of the matter, but to achieve certain goals you have, to
influence others, to push them in a direction that is favorable to you
(without being conscious of it, otherwise you're just a dishonest manipulator,
and this is not about that).

Just wanted to be more precise about what this "identity" thing really means.
I think though that you _can_ have a "wider identity" _and_ have "fruitful"
i.e. truth-seeking merit-based discussions at the same time; you just have to
be conscious - and honest - about it. So I'd dispute his implied drive that
you mustn't "be" something (Communist, Christian, etc.). What is really called
for is being cognizant and honest.

Taking being Communist as an example, this would mean that you're playing for
the ultimate goal, not for the advancement of your party over others no matter
what. Putting ideals over politicking.

Of course the core ideals is a much harder core. These core ideals are the
true core of your being, there's no easy arguing about changing _them_.

I apologize if this all is trite and cliche.

~~~
alexpetralia
I always find it interesting how some of the beliefs that form the core of our
identity are actually ones we have investigated least rigorously (eg.
political affiliation, religious denomination, etc.). We are much more likely
to dissect and reject new ideas that do not benefit from this 'first-mover
advantage' than question the ones with which we were endowed.

I write about this somewhat here:
[https://alexpetralia.github.io/epistemology/2018/02/22/your-...](https://alexpetralia.github.io/epistemology/2018/02/22/your-
beliefs-are-not-up-to-you.html)

~~~
tendicular
thanks for the link. this is about protecting our 'investments', the fallacy
of sunk costs. OTOH if we try to be honest and self-aware, what we're left
with are the few core values and ideals, mostly about what _choices_ are
acceptable to us, that form our moral _core_. Maybe that's what he meant by
"narrow" identity.

------
adjkant
> As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a
> religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with
> Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?

Javascript has aged up I think!

~~~
dang
And for the reason described in the essay: more people have identified either
with it or against it.

Once _being a JS programmer_ becomes a thing you _are_ or _aren 't_, people
are arguing about themselves.

~~~
adjkant
I guess we're all just Reactionaries right now.

~~~
WalterSear
At least we aren't Angularies, those apostates and heathens.

~~~
scivey7
Apologies for not contributing anything meaningful to the overall discussion
here... but this is one of the best things I've read all day.

------
barrkel
I like to try on identities a bit like trying on clothes. If someone is making
decisions based on identity, you'll find it hard to understand them, or
empathize with their position if you can't imagine what their outlook is like.
It's especially troubling if you think of people with different perspectives
as being "other", alien in some way.

Most identities have positive things to commend them, as well as negatives.
Frequently a set of identities mesh together into a consistent narrative of
the world, such that you can't change people's mind on a single issue unless
you can flip them on a whole bunch of related issues, or create a better
narrative. These narratives are often backed by both ignorance and logical
fallacies that cause evidence to be misinterpreted.

I think if you don't try out other identities, other world views, you're
liable to get stuck in an identity by default, and just not be aware of how
biased your perspective is.

~~~
ardualabs
This reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's "Reality Tunnel" experiments. If
you've not read him, I'd highly recommend his work - especially "Prometheus
Rising".

------
js2
I’m reminded of “Strong Opinons, Weakly Held”:

 _I’ve been pretty obsessed about the difference between smart people and wise
people for years. I tried to write a book called “The Attitude of Wisdom” a
couple times. And the virtues of wise people – those who have the courage to
act on their knowledge, but the humility to doubt what they know – is one of
the main themes in Hard Facts. We show how leaders including Xerox’s Ann
Mulcahy, Intel’s Any Grove, Harrah’s Gary Loveman, and IDEO’s David Kelley
turn this attitude into organizational action. Perhaps the best description
I’ve ever seen of how wise people act comes from the amazing folks at Palo
Alto’s Institute for the Future. A couple years ago, I was talking the
Institute’s Bob Johansen about wisdom, and he explained that – to deal with an
uncertain future and still move forward – they advise people to have “strong
opinions, which are weakly held.” They 've been giving this advice for years,
and I understand that it was first developed by Instituite Director Paul
Saffo. Bob explained that weak opinions are problematic because people aren’t
inspired to develop the best arguments possible for them, or to put forth the
energy required to test them. Bob explained that it was just as important,
however, to not be too attached to what you believe because, otherwise, it
undermines your ability to “see” and “hear” evidence that clashes with your
opinions. This is what psychologists sometimes call the problem of
“confirmation bias.”_

[http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinio...](http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html)

~~~
duncanawoods
I've always been troubled by this because it seems to excuse poor behaviour
i.e.

\- "strong opinion" \- the opinion is asserted aggressively and without tact

\- "weakly held" \- there is little justification for the opinion and it will
be abandoned under pressure and on a whim

Sutton seems to want Strong to mean something about "attracting energy" as if
Strong means "intentionally provocative" but it really isn't clear to me. I
prefer "reasoned opinions presented thoughtfully" but then I'm British so...
eh.

~~~
kelnos
I think it's phrased that way to emphasize the -- perhaps unintuitive --
dichotomy, not to suggest that people be tactless or thoughtless. The way I
(admittedly not British) read it is:

\- "strong opinion" \- I've thought about this a lot and it seems reasonable
and justifiable enough to base my actions on it.

\- "weakly held" \- I recognize that I'm not a perfect being and can discard
my opinions if I come across new, convincing evidence that contradicts them.

The main difference I think is avoiding equating "strong" with "brutish" and
"weak" with "pushover". I think when those terms are applied to people that's
how we think of them, but they just mean very different things in an
academic/intellectual context.

------
dorkwood
I'd argue for the opposite: growing your identity beyond a single thing. If
someone sees themselves as a waiter and nothing else, they're more likely to
feel injured by someone saying that a waiter is a dead-end job, because the
majority of their identity just took a heavy blow. But if they instead see
themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and a reader, they'll be less
affected when one of those things is attacked.

~~~
joelrunyon
> But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and
> a reader, they'll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.

I think what you see in reality (at least these days) is that if ANY of the
downsides to any of the identities are pointed out, you'll see people rush to
have to defend it.

Also, I believe attaching your identity to being a waiter would be doing the
opposite of what PG is suggesting here in the first place.

~~~
dorkwood
What is his suggestion, though, exactly? For a waiter to not consider 'being a
waiter' as part of his identity? If we're talking about reality, that strikes
me as a fairly unrealistic ask, especially if it's all the waiter does.

And I can only really speak from my personal experience. Having a diverse
range of interests has given me a protective barrier that I didn't have when I
was younger. When I was a teenager, for example, I didn't really have any
skills except for "being good with computers". If someone (usually an older
person) ever disparaged that, it destroyed me. I'd stew in anger and want to
retaliate -- I can still remember. As I grew up, I diversified my interests. I
got good at other things, too. Computers are now only a piece of my identity
instead of the whole, and it's made me a lot less insecure.

~~~
mseebach
The idea is about trying to keep seperate the things you do/feel/believe and
what you _are_. For our waiter friend, is the fact that he's a waiter somehow
the essence of his being? Or is it a job he does, because one needs a job and
this is on balance a pretty good one?

In the latter case, if someone says that waiting is a dead end job, he can
much easier say sure, yeah, not many places to go, but the hours are really
convenient for my life situation. This is obviously a much more productive (or
at least not destructive) outcome.

It's almost impossible to have a productive discussion with someone who _is_ a
[ideology]ist, but quite possible to have one with a reasonable person who is
of the belief that [ideology] offers some good answers to problems in society.

~~~
dorkwood
I agree that it would be more productive for the waiter to be able to detach
his identity from his job. But to even be able to do that in the first place,
he needs to have something else going on. He needs to be so sure of his
identity that an insult to his line of work doesn't bother him. But if he's
taken the writer's advice, and kept his identity very small, what if he one
day realises that whatever he saw himself as was a lie? Now he's in trouble
again. And I think that's the danger of the writer's approach: you're always
going to have to see yourself as _something_.

The writer claims that you can't think clearly about any topic that's part of
your identity, but I disagree with that. I think the thing that prevents you
from thinking clearly is that the topic is tied to such a large part of your
being. If you instead grow your identity beyond a single thing, your capacity
for outrage becomes diluted.

~~~
mseebach
> you're always going to have to see yourself as something.

I think this is indirectly a large part of the problem. The trend in society
is that everybody must have totally unique and interesting identities, and
since few people are in fact "special" enough to live up to that ridiculously
high standard, they need to pile on everything and the kitchensink to get to
some reasonable approximation. And you'll still wake up one day and dread that
your identity is not, in fact, unique and interesting enough, which looks a
lot like your "a lie" scenario. But in the meantime, you've set yourself up to
spend a non-trivial amount of time fending off attacks, real and imagined, on
any of the myriad of items that make up your identity.

In a past not too distant, our waiter-friend would be content to see himself
as a good person, a good friend and a provider for his family.

~~~
dorkwood
I think we both agree that contentedness is the goal, but we disagree on how
to get there.

To you, it might seem like 'fending off attacks, real or imagined', is a waste
of time, when the waiter could just snap his fingers and suddenly be content
with being a good person. But I don't think it's that easy. I think that
mentally fending off attacks is a necessary component of becoming content. For
the waiter to arrive there, he needs experience. He needs to have reasoned
through his problems and put his answers to the test: what makes a good
person? Is it living virtuously? Is it living according to one's values? What
are my values? I value craftsmanship, yet I'm a waiter -- is that a conflict?
In my opinion, the waiter needs to figure all of that out before he can become
content. You might call it a waste of time, worrying about things that may or
may not be consequential. I call it building up mental fortitude.

Becoming content, in my opinion, requires mental fortitude, and having a
varied identity is one of the tools to help build that. I'm still struggling
to see how limiting my identity to a single thing helps me be content in any
way. Even if I limit it to something as simple as 'a provider for my family',
what happens if I fall on hard times and can't do that anymore? It's going to
hit me like a ton of bricks. I'd rather be able to weather that storm when it
comes.

~~~
mseebach
It seems to come down to a definition of what it means for something to be a
part of your identity. All of those internal discussions the waiter has, he
can have those productively, probably _more_ productively, without making
waiterism his identity.

The point of limiting your identity to the core stuff, like providing for your
family, is that those are the things are truly matter. If you can't provide
for your family, that _will_ hit you like a ton of bricks, regardless of
whether it's part of your identity or not. But if you let a nasty comment
about your hairstyle, the viability of socialism or whether Jesus really
existed bring you down, you can choose not to care because it doesn't really
matter (in that isolated interaction, the questions may well matter in the
grand scheme of things).

Also, nobody said this was supposed to be easy, something you just flip on and
off. But it's something individuals can think about for themselves and decide
whether their haircut or profession is really important enough to feel
attacked if someone makes a nasty comment.

~~~
dorkwood
Yeah, I think you're right about it coming down to a definition of what
identity is.

When I talk about broadening my identity, I guess what I'm really talking
about is exploring new interests and testing out new ideas. The thought of
'keeping your identity small', to me, seemed as if it was suggesting I should
never invest myself into anything lest I open myself up to criticism (which
struck me as a fearful way to live).

If I instead think of it as deciding between what matters and what doesn't,
and only truly caring about things that matter, that makes a lot more sense,
and is actually something I agree with.

------
stared
I like capturing this topic by making a distinction between nouns vs
adjectives.

E.g. if someone is, say, "I am Polish" (or: "capitalist", "feminist",
"Catholic", "socialist", "atheist", "gay" etc) and treats it an adjective
describing their beliefs, tastes, etc it is up to an exploration and
discussions (when evolution is accepted and does no harm to one's self-
esteem). If someone else uses it to declare their identity, it makes it easy
to make an entrenched view, with "us vs them", and in which change endangers
one position (or, well, identity).

------
gcheong
Also related - the "backfire effect" \- where challenging a person's core
beliefs only entrenches them further. Nicely explained and illustrated here by
The Oatmeal:
[http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe](http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe)

------
spiffage
I loved this essay when it came out, and I still think it's pretty great. But
I'm forced to acknowledge that a big reason I was on board with it is that the
identities I was given to choose from when I was young didn't appeal to me.

And I'm forced to acknowledge that for most people, their identities do _work_
and make them happy in ways I can only sort-of understand. And maybe they
lower our society's level of epistemic virtue, but people may never let them
go, and it's not obvious that we ought to try to convince them to beyond a
certain point.

I like balioc's perspective here
[https://balioc.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/responsa/](https://balioc.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/responsa/).
The whole thing is good, but he responds to PG's essay specifically with:

"I could answer by saying that, in many circumstances, identity really is
necessary for hedonic well-being. [...] the world isn’t set up to provide us
with constant sources of utility, so it’s much better to have a constantly-
accessible utility generator inside yourself, even if that generator requires
some finicky maintenance."

------
JoshMnem
That's basically the reason why I've never joined any political party or any
other group (as an identity). Labels restrict thinking, and you can get pulled
into knee-jerk reactions even if you are conscious of how that works.

Changing identity has a high cost for the organism (social connections, access
to institutions, cognitive dissonance, existential crisis), which is why I
think some people have those knee-jerk reactions. It's evolution at work.

------
mirimir
I do my best to avoid _believing_ in anything. That is, I have working
hypotheses, more or less well-tested, but always open to revision based on new
data. I do have principles and values that are essentially freely chosen. But
even those are subject to revision. I strive for what works.

That approach rather precludes religion. Because most religions are explicitly
untestable.

~~~
decasia
I think the problem is that it's logistically impossible to empirically test
all your working hypotheses. For example, my working hypothesis is that
Darwinian evolution is a true theory about the development of life on this
planet. But as I'm not a biologist, I don't really have the skills to
empirically test my hypothesis; I just trust that other people have done this
and are doing a good job. Similarly, I believe reports that there are as many
as 10^22 stars in the universe, but I won't test that either because I'm not
an astronomer and I generally trust astronomers...

In other words, I think there is an intermediate category that deserves
attention:

1) Beliefs that you refuse to revise 2) Beliefs that you could revise in
theory but probably never will in practice (for lack of expertise, resources,
etc) 3) Beliefs that you actively try to develop

We are limited in our beliefs by our material capacities for inquiry, sadly.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, of course. But none of that stuff that I'll never test is a belief. It's
all provisional. I'm also prone to decline to have an opinion, admitting that
I'm not qualified.

------
madacoo
I wonder if it would be sufficient to restrict nouns that you use to assert
your identity to those which can be 'verbified': I am a juggler because I
juggle; I am a programmer because I program; I am a writer because I write.

Those particular nouns seem to be inherently less likely to cause partisan
behaviour that nouns that can't be as easily 'verbified': I am British because
I Brit; I am not Christian because I don't Christ.

I suppose a simpler way of saying this would be to restrict your sense of
identity to things you do over things you believe. Although I'm not at all
certain that this would actually serve to avoid the kind of 'dumbness' the
author describes.

~~~
dalbasal
...I think identity in this context is largely the "I am a" form.

I'm a giggler is identity. I juggle, or even I am _the juggler_ is not the
same sort of a mark of Identity. So I'd say the advice is is avoid (or
at.least recognize and minimize)) thinking in the "I am a" frame.

~~~
madacoo
I agree the advice in the article is to avoid "I am a ..." but given that
seems somewhat impossible and the advice is to avoid this construct in order
to prevent a kind of 'dumbness' as described by the article, I was wondering
if it would be sufficient to avoid 'non-verb-ifiable' nouns in order to
achieve the desired outcome: prevention of dumbness. I should have made that
aspect of my comment clearer.

------
stareatgoats
Good advice, albeit hard to accomplish. Identity is a core part of political
party formation, at least in Europe (together with self-interest and
ideology). No doubt it has an important role in marketing as well. I don't see
these forces giving up on pulling the identity lever any time soon, it seems
to gain importance if anything.

However, perceived identity coupled with a sense of oppression, exceptionalism
and/or fear of extinction is what always gets us in trouble (i.e. war), so
there are a number of good reasons to keep tight reins on identity.

~~~
lamename
Agreed. Humans tend to quickly self-sort into tribes. Sometimes it's fine,
sometimes it's fun (sports), sometimes it's exploitable

~~~
mr_toad
Not just humans. Other hominids operate at a tribal level.

Obviously there is a survival adavantage to help ensure the genes of your
tribe (genetically close relatives) survive.

I can’t help but think that human political ‘tribalism’ is just atavism.

------
ardualabs
I don't know if I can quite express how wonderful it was to read this. I'm not
so naive as to believe it's not because it lines up with my notions, and as
said in the article (or implied) there's no sense in talking past your
expertise. All I can say is that the Dunning-Kruger
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect))
seems to be at play in most online discourse, and that certain subjects,
especially in an environment of entitlement (i.e. everybody's opinion is
"valid" \- whatever that means).

------
lamename
Great points, echoes this:

"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions. They're
objects in a box you carry with you, and should be easily replaceable if it
turns out they're no good. If you think that the opinions in the box are 'who
you are', then you'll cling to them despite evidence to the contrary.

Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to
change your mind."

from
[https://youtu.be/tlsU_YT9n_g?t=1m6s](https://youtu.be/tlsU_YT9n_g?t=1m6s)

------
haberman
One major way that identity corrupts arguments is when people ignore or excuse
the flaws and weaknesses their position. When you hold others to a different
standard than you hold yourself and your allies, it destroys the trust that is
essential to a fruitful exchange of ideas.

So "not responding from identity" requires more than just being even-keeled
and emotionally detached from the argument. It requires acknowledging the
weaknesses in your position with the same receptiveness as you see flaws in
others.

~~~
IntronExon
I’ve found that taking some time away from the argument can help all parties
involved come to terms with what you’re describing. Its can be difficult to
do, and some time away from the scrum gives you a chance to replay the
argument in your mind without having to defend your position.

------
bernardino
> The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

I argue the more labels you have for not only yourself _but_ for the world you
experience, the dumber they make you.

~~~
DonGateley
If you believe your argument then you must find scientific study and discovery
an exercise in making one dumber.

I'm afraid I find your argument to be a defense of ignorance.

~~~
bernardino
The argument I made stems from a spiritual, non-dualistic perspective. While
reading the blog post and writing the comment, I was thinking about how I
think a lot about what is capital-t true. I usually find then if I would like
to move towards what is capital-t true, dis-identifying and dropping labels is
the start, individually and worldly. It's a lot like the pursuit of certainty
by Descartes: What he did was lay everything down that he has known and throw
away all which wasn’t certain, which later translated into: “Cogito ergo sum.”
In similar form, I think ought to do the same: dis-identify with things, not
have a reactive like or dislike with life, not mentally label every
experience, etc. In other words, having labels and identifying with things is
the opposite way towards where I would like to go, since that, I think, gets
away from the core of what is capital-t true. If any of things I said above
makes any sense.

Ultimately, I'm sorry, I should have gone into detail why I think my argument
is the case. I'm also afraid I don't have a scientific study, it's really just
what I have come to know at the moment, though I'm certain what I know at the
moment will change, plus I do love counter-arguments since that's where we get
somewhere really worth noting. I also should have not used the word 'dumber',
but another, more compassionate word, I think.

------
bencollier49
As a counterpoint, it's entirely possible that avoiding identifying with
anything also cuts off a massive range of psychological states, meaning that
you may not become as empathic as other people, and thus have fewer ideas, or
at least ideas of a different sort.

The ultimate trick would be to identify with _everything_. Hopefully a brain-
computer interface might make that sort of experience possible in the future.

------
hmwhy
I was immediately reminded of a wiki page about enlightenment (Immanuel Kant)
[0] after reading through the essay, which may an interesting additional
reading to some. The English translation of the essay that the wiki page is
based on can be found here [1].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answering_the_Question:_What_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answering_the_Question:_What_is_Enlightenment%3F)

[1]
[http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html](http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html)

------
combatentropy
I had thought politics and religion were controversial because they have to do
with how you run your life. For example, if I own guns, and you propose
banning them, then I imagine someone coming and taking my guns, and I can get
mad.

------
meganibla
A useful Corollary being that identity politics, in another words convincing
people to identify with increasingly smaller and more specific groups, and
getting them to fight amongst themselves, in other words trying to increase
their identities to include some more things, is the perfect way to keep
people from thinking clearly about real issues. A useful way to keep the
population on the back foot in a democracy keep them fighting about emotive
issues rather than thinking clearly about substantial one, and divide the
market into small sections to make it easier to direct messaging to appeal for
votes.

------
jameslk
Politics are interesting. Perhaps politicking wouldn't be necessary if we
could determine with accuracy the results of policies before implementing
them. For example, maybe this could be done by complex computer simulation in
the future. Furthermore, policy might be synthesized by the same processes if
it can be simulated.

Which then raises another interesting point: would democracy be less efficient
and necessary if we could determine optimal policy for society before
implementing it? Would we just vote on the desires of society rather than
policies to get us there?

~~~
tvanantwerp
I work at a think tank. I don't think any of the models used by any policy
experts are at a level where such simulation is possible. We can't predict the
weather more than about a week out, and that's just a physical system--
policies depend on quirky humans with lots of weird incentives and preferences
that are difficult to predict. Modeling can let you make educated guesses at
best.

Of course, plenty of partisans have an interest in producing models that spit
out results that just so happen to show what they already believed (e.g.,
Tobacco Institute), and politicians will cite those results with the same
regularity as more rigorous work. Without expertise in the matter, it can be
hard to find any given model's weak points; and they all have weak points.

As for voting for desired outcomes rather than desired policies: I'm pretty
sure this is what most people are doing already. Lots of political pressure
all around have your cake and eat it too. Sadly, I've never seen any policy
that could solve a problem like that--too many trade-offs in real life.

------
philipps
I agree that tying one’s convictions to identity and arguing on the basis of
identity makes cooperation among individuals with different identities harder.
However, I find the suggestion to reduce one’s identity problematic. First,
identity plays an important role in developing a sense of community and aides
in-group cooperation. And second, it’s worth keeping in mind that it’s easy to
underestimate the attachment to identity when one’s own identity happens to be
widely-accepted and/or relatively easy to discard.

------
jxub
When in the history has this "boxing" of oneself started?

Maybe other cultures don't surround the consciusness with so much fluff, like
"I'm a valedictorian from the Yale class of 2010 and I work at Goldman and
play polo". Or "I'm a Lenin follower and everyone should bow to international
marxism".

I think eg. the Chinese take on this is more about the family or something.
Any pointers?

~~~
oil7abibi
Plenty of cultures attach identities to their societies - Sunni/Shi’a,
Hutu/Tutsi, etc. Other cultures don’t focus as much on their “work identity”
as you described, but they fill their identities with others.

Source: lived overseas and been to 25+ countries.

------
platz
How can you advocate for your own self-interest politically, if it is not
connected to your identity?

How would you even decide what policies you want?

PG makes it seem like we could simply do politics by creating some ultimate
utilitarian function. But then how do you decide what it counts as good?

In fact, there is no separating identity from politics, no matter how you try
to obfuscate it.

~~~
badestrand
I think you might have a good point, there is no "objectively good" in
politics. For example when you consider highly unequal incomes as a problem in
society then you will support different measures than when you don't find that
problematic at all. For both there is no "real" basis, the measurement for
"good" is only your image of how you want the world to be in 100 years and
thus entirely subjective.

------
mapcars
Sadhguru a yogi, mystic, and visionary explains the problem of identity in a
very profound way (for example in this google talks video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM))
he says our identity should be the whole universe.

~~~
rootw0rm
As a pantheist I agree.

------
mrleiter
That's why when you argue with someone about one of these topics and you try
to prove a certain point that does not fit ther line of thinking, you are
effectively thwarting their identity. In their exes you make them less of a
person. You take away a part of their identity. Nobody wants that.

------
olfox
I make a distinction between positive/inclusive or negative/exclusive
identity. While I certainly condone the statement "I'm not a murderer", I try
to define myself in terms like "I value life". This gets tougher when certain
positive constructs come with a lot of negative connotations. We can try to
reclaim those words, emphasize that being a nerd is about devouring
information and not about despising social contact, but sometimes its a lost
cause and all we can do is come up with a new word. Another way of thinking of
it is to be the union of identities, not the intersection. This heuristic can
fail in many ways, but it's served me well so far.

------
eevilspock
This is all very convenient if you happen to be of the dominant identity. Even
if you don't consciously associate yourself with it, you benefit from it.

For those not of the dominant identity, to "not even to consider yourself an
x" is a problem if you are an x and the problem you want to address is
systemic unfairness toward x.

Imagine yourself a slave in 1850 being advised to not consider yourself a
slave, or black, because you'd avoid useless discussions.

Imagine yourself a woman today being advised by HR to not consider yourself a
woman or your experiences as one when discussing workplace discrimination or
harassment.

Imagine yourself a gay man being advised to forget you are one when discussing
laws restricting gay marriage.

You get the picture.

~~~
grzm
Note the title is "Keep your identity small", not "Reduce your identity to
zero". While I _think_ I can see what you're getting at, I'm not sure I follow
the logic. Bear with me for a moment: In the case of slavery, I wouldn't want
someone to consider themselves a slave, I'd want them to consider themselves a
human being and expect to be treated as such. Similarly for anyone dealing
with harassment or unjust marriage laws. These conditions aren't unjust
because one is a slave or a woman or gay. They're unjust because you're a
human, and the conditions are inhumane. A slave doesn't want to continue to be
a slave; a woman doesn't want to have to put up with harassment because
they're a woman; a gay man doesn't want to be treated differently because he's
a gay man: they want to be treated fairly and justly because they're human.

I think one of the things Graham is pointing towards is finding what is common
among people, rather than focussing on the differences. A couple of sentences
that stood out to me when I read it were _" More generally, you can have a
fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of
any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is
that they engage so many people's identities."_ I read that as focussing on
those topics in common.

None of this is guaranteed, of course. But I think it's a more constructive
way forward than focussing on what divides people.

Would you expand on what aspects of the piece you took to supporting the
conclusions and examples you provided above?

------
the_gipsy
I think this is similar to “liking” vs “doing” something, in terms of defining
yourself.

Anybody can like something, and build an identity based on taste and opinions.
It requires no skill. But _doing_ something is a much deeper way of defining
yourself.

------
rgun
The book _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and
Religion_ by _Jonathan Haidt_ explores similar concepts.

It is an extremely interesting book on moral psychology. (YC 2017 Summer
Reading List)

------
sergeyfilippov
> Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise
> for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.

I like how in this context it sounds obviously flawed, and yet, funny enough,
we still have no better political system than for everyone to express their
opinion and then count them — no expertise required

------
Torai
_Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant_

I'm fairly intolerant Paul, with the things I deem wrong.

And first thing is, why the fuck are listening to you about Politics and
Religion. What is your experience on those area so you can enlighten us. In
which forums (nowadays they are called chat groups) have you debated hard,
holding your ground. And how many people have you convinced on 1 vs 1
ideological battles.

I'm tired of false prophets. And I get this Paul guy is someone related to the
world of software. But someone should steal him the mic when he starts talking
about topics he is not experienced enough.

People need to keep their Identity BIG. But they need to realize about the bad
things in their cultural heritage, keeping only the good things and erasing or
transforming the bad ones. It's simple.

But Paul, if you don't know about how to convince people that is opposing your
views then please don't try to make magic 1 liner recipes for everyone. Cause
people is dumb, and many of them will blindly follow your command without
fully understanding it. The same thing as with Agile methodology and other
abstractions (10 commandments for example) that come from many years expertise
of one guy with much wisdom, but that at the end, people blindly follow
without making them think or test it to see if it's right.

Identity=Ego

And here we have 2009 Paul Graham, with an ego as big as it gets, telling
other people not to have an strong ego. So he is denying others the tool that
makes individuals be certain about their ideas and possibilities. He is
denying others their right to grow.

------
dreamfactored
The trouble here is that the more you know about something, the more it must
necessarily form part of your identity. I could otherwise dispense the most
dispassionate (and apparently therefore excellent) advice on topics ranging
from Micronesian politics to string theory.

------
mathgenius
Plenty of this going on right now in the world of cryptocurrency. And possibly
for the same reason: who is to say what coin is good (will succeed) or not?

------
drraid0
I don't recall how it was back in 2009, but you definitely don't need to be a
JavaScript expert to have passionately useless opinions about it.

------
trevyn
I came to a similar conclusion recently, and I believe that evolutionarily,
the concept of identity originates from the biological drive to protect one's
physical body. One then voluntarily expands or contracts one's sense of
identity from there.

So I did some mental experiments. Temporarily reducing my identity to not
include my physical body, bit by bit.

Then, what am I?

My consciousness.

What if I reduce it further?

I lose consciousness.

(But I get it back after I wake up.)

What if I try to lose the sense of identity while still remaining aware?

It wraps around and I become the universe. Am one with the universe.

It was an interesting journey.

------
adnam
.

~~~
yathern
It sounds like what you're talking about is Pascals Wager[0]

The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if
false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false.
Therefore, any logical person ought to be a Christian, since the consequences
of belief are net positive either way. Or so the thought goes.

As a person of faith, I will say that this thought experiment is fairly
flawed. For one, you must apply Pascals wager to all faith systems
simultaneously if you want to be sure you get the best outcome. But of course,
it's not equally likely that Pastafarianism is the one true way as is Buddhism
as is Atheism. How do you weight the possibilities in such a way to do an
honest analysis? These things are based on what you believe already - so then
the question of what to believe becomes recursive, really.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager)

~~~
borplk
> The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if
> false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false.

That makes lots of assumptions about what God is and how he behaves.

~~~
adnam
.

~~~
edanm
Not... really?

I mean, obviously atheism is a pretty broad thing (just like "religion", or
even "Christianity" encompasses many views).

But for a lot of people, the essence of atheism isn't about anything to do
with final judgement. It's just... not believe that God exists. For lots of
atheists, it's not a rebellion of anything like that. We don't believe in God
in pretty much the same way you probably don't believe in Shiva.

------
joshuaheard
Interesting idea. If your political ideology is part of your identity like
race or gender, should it become a protected class for anti-discrimination
protection?

