
Keep Your Identity Small (2009) - ColinWright
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
======
veidr
> "Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise
> for expressing an opinion."

I agree that this is how people tend to see it. But it isn't really true. Like
JavaScript or auto mechanics or animal husbandry, there is indeed a threshold
of expertise for expressing a _meaningful_ opinion.

The value of somebody else's commentary on political issues is pretty much
directly proportional to their understanding of the political system and their
command of objective facts. This is true even if they subscribe to political
ideals diametrically opposed to your own.

Personally speaking, this is why I have been so sad about the political
discussion on HN since SOPA and Snowden. I thought it might be one of those
rare forums where empirical facts and "evidence-based" thinking prevailed --
but it really hasn't. People still seem mostly trapped in their private little
jihads, just like they are in the youtube comments section.

To me that's disappointing because government is something so fundamentally
amenable to hacking, and the stakes are so incredibly high. The state of the
art is so so sad and primitive, with so much low-hanging fruit. (The state of
the art in governance, that is, at least if you accept at face value the
objective of representing the interests of the electorate; the state of the
art of getting elected is actually incredibly advanced, but rarely publicly
talked about in earnest.)

~~~
_dps
> The value of somebody else's commentary on political issues is pretty much
> directly proportional to their understanding of the political system and
> their command of objective facts.

I think this is objectively wrong for the specific case of politics; unlike,
say, analytical chemistry, politics has an active opinion on how each of us
live our lives and can't be "left to the expert" (the latter being what the
political and legal experts would love everyone to accept).

Concrete counter-examples to your claim:

1) Does a homosexual couple with no knowledge of US marriage law not have a
valid opinion on whether they should be allowed to marry?

2) Did poorly educated blacks or women need training in the subtleties of
constitutional law before they could have a valid opinion on universal
suffrage?

Politics, by its nature, shoves itself in everyone's face. Thus everyone has a
legitimate basis on which to argue about how they are to be governed, even if
they are ignorant of the details of the governance mechanism.

~~~
dylangs1030
Counters to your counters:

> _1) Does a homosexual couple with no knowledge of US marriage law not have a
> valid opinion on whether they should be allowed to marry?_

No, that couple doesn't have a valid opinion. How could they? They don't
understand that marriage is in the United States. That conceptualization of
"togetherness" as a couple doesn't exist in their minds. The threshold at
which they can form a valid opinion is, therefore, at the entry-level of
understanding United States marriage laws.

> _2)Did poorly educated blacks or women need training in the subtleties of
> constitutional law before they could have a valid opinion on universal
> suffrage?_

Depends on what you mean by "training" \- they need to understand what
suffrage _is_ , so in that sense, yes, they do need training. This is the
threshold for having a valid opinion.

Here are concrete counter-examples to your counter-examples:

1) If a gay couple were asked if they wanted the right to be married without
first being told the sociological context and culture of marriage in the
United States, and without understanding the legal ramifications of being
married, their opinion would be null and void - just noise. They don't know
what they're agreeing/disagreeing with.

2) If you asked women if they'd like the ability to vote, and they said yes,
but couldn't answer you when you asked them what a democratic republic is, or
how representation works in the United States, their opinions would be
meaningless. It would be equivalent to pathos-driven desire to be able to do
_something_ \- ultimately, a useless opinion.

Understand - I'm not being pedantic. Your examples may show a somewhat _low_
threshold for meaningful opinions, but the parent is correct in that you need
some threshold for every opinion.

~~~
_dps
I was tempted not to reply because I think we're just arguing over the many
possible definitions of the word "valid", and that can quickly become
uninteresting. Here's a stab at not being too much of a hair-splitter.

In a nutshell, it sounds like your definition of "valid" (and parent's) refer
to some frame of objectively true facts and a commonly accepted value system.
I agree that one would have to take such a definition in order to find
_intellectual_ value in a person's opinions on political matters.

My definition of validity (in the context of the previous comment) has to do
with recognizing subjective individual value systems that must occasionally be
trampled upon in order to have a functioning state. By their nature, political
institutions touch your life whether you want them to do so or not.

So my view is that all people affected by a political institution have _valid_
opinions on the actions of said institution, even if those opinions are not
particularly well informed or even logical. If an institution forces something
into (or out of) your life, I take the position that you have a valid voice
with which to support or oppose that action, even if I might find that support
or opposition to be unpersuasive from a logical or evidentiary frame of
reference.

To close the loop of example/counter-example, I think your two counter-
counter-examples demonstrate opinions of low _intellectual_ validity, as they
do not stem from a body of knowledge. However, I think they are fully
_politically_ valid, because I don't see any way to have a politically
legitimate institution while invalidating the opinions of those whose
individual values are violated by its actions.

------
ColinWright
This was mentioned in the thread:

"HN is Becoming 2005 Slashdot"

([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6157485](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6157485))

It makes for an interesting read concerning speculation as to why HN is
becoming less and less technical over time, and more about politics.

Technical issues and articles take time to read, digest, and understand. It
takes a minimum level of expertise to be able to comment usefully on technical
issues, so by the time a technical submission has been read properly, it's too
late for it to reach the HN front page.

An interesting dilemma.

~~~
dasil003
Definitely interesting. I'd say if we want to actively fight the entropy of
the social news mechanic (ie. the feedback loop of popularity winning and
slight dumbing down of anything increasing popularity), then perhaps we should
glance quickly at an article and then jump back and upvote it based a snap
judgement of its technical depth.

Of course we run the risk of upvoting well-dressed crackpot nonsense, but
that's probably a lesser risk than becoming reddit.

~~~
oelmekki
I don't know if you guys proceed the same as me, but I merely open a tenth of
links on home or new page.

Actually, when doing so, you can consider any opened link deserves an upvote,
provided that at first glance, it is what the link title promised : it
attracted your attention so may attract other people.

Nevermind if the point made in the linked article you upvoted is valid or not
after a detailed review, the subject is interesting and may lead to
interesting discussions - and top comments will instantly warn if the point is
not valid.

------
gbog
When going slightly against common sense, people tend to randomly add Chinese
quotes, usually from Lao-tzu, and it is almost always a bad idea. But here
this text is vibrating strongly with one of the core idea of daoism, it is
impressive.

It could be found more closely in Zhuangzi or even Lizi. These guys were
living in a time when many have been killed for their ideas, and many had
strong beliefs. Their solution for survival was to be an empty vase, a useless
tool.

A good example is the tree: a straight trunk is the sure path to death for a
pine tree, while if you are twisted in a way that makes you useless you
survive much longer.

There is also this empty boat story. If a big vessel sees a small boat in her
way the captain will shout at the small boat, but let the small boat be empty
and the captain will just move around.

Daoism is all about being this empty boat. And it is it's limits: society also
need people with strong belief and ready to die for them.

Just take slavery; it is a moral belief and duty to be against slavery. Even
if by some rational reasoning slavery was proven a better solution than
freedom, we would still have to stand against it, and some have died for this
moral belief.

So I think I cannot fully agree here.

Edit: Or to be more precise, there is a limit to the reduction of one's
identity. Maybe this limit is just that common identity we all share:
humanity.

~~~
mbrock
Great comment.

I'm not particularly gung ho about humanity as identity. That concept has very
often been used as a carrier of more or less conscious prejudices and ideals.

Some philosophers (Agamben among others) make the case that humanity
traditionally defines itself as the animal which goes beyond animality. This
means that humanity is not a simple essence, but a process of separation and
an attempt at transcendence. Which is obviously kind of messy and complex.

Plus, what's the reason to identify as human rather than mammal, animal, or
simply life?

~~~
gbog
Yes, this differentiation between humans and other animal is kind of axiomatic
here, but I fear that if you remove it the consequences are too dangerous. I
believe that exploiting crops or cows in a field, and killing them, is morally
acceptable, while exploiting fellow humans in a factory is not.

------
undoware
Keeping your identity 'small' is really easy when you're rich and don't need
to team up to effect change.

Identities are what form motivated groups, and groups -- or parties -- are,
for better or for worse, what our form of democracy runs on.

Rich dudes can keep small identities and still make shit happen; poor
everyone-else has to form teams, and with a diversity of levels of education,
talent, intelligence and common sense, that will invariably mean pandering and
WOOOOing a bit. Why? Because not everyone is smart enough to be affected by
rhetoric. Ex hypothesis everyone else has already been 'taken', i.e. has
considered opinions, so by elimination it's the aggressive, passionate idiots
who play kingmaker. Thus explaining US politics.

So, Paul Graham, keep your identity small, but please enlarge your
perspective. People are getting irrational because they're getting riled up,
and they're getting riled up because riling-up is what gets the Irrational
Vote, and that's the only one that's not already either bought or reasoned
into passivity.

It's game theory, in other words. Like most human suffering.

~~~
andyl
Forget about politics. Forget about rich people. Most change comes from
artists and science/technology folk.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

------
dasil003
I like pg's theory here, it's definitely something I try to live by (keeping
my identity small), but I think he missed a key observation:

Religion (perhaps moreso historically) and especially politics are mine fields
because there are so many inputs and so many outputs. That is to say almost
any policy decision will affect a lot of people in a lot of different ways. He
touches on this by discussing vague and definite questions, but he doesn't
really explore that avenue.

For instance, consider the evaluation of how much a government program is
going to cost. It doesn't matter how precisely you can answer that question
because it just leads directly to other questions such as where the money will
come from and what the results of the program will be. Even if the follow up
questions are precise as well, they bloom out into innumerable consequences
far and wide. It's not just that the bar of having an opinion is low, it's
because these decisions _actually_ affect all these people, and all in
different ways. The fact that they may not have the expertise or knowledge to
know the true affects and are easily manipulated by identity-appealing
propaganda just exacerbates the problem, but it's not the root cause.

The more fundamental problem is that politics is a direct view into the
massively interdependent organic ecosystem of large-scale human society. Even
if you are the foremost expert on the implications of some political issue and
your facts are indisputable, people will still (with good reason) disagree on
the merits of those indisputable implications.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
>It's not just that the bar of having an opinion is low, it's because these
decisions actually affect all these people, and all in different ways. The
fact that they may not have the expertise or knowledge to know the true
affects and are easily manipulated by identity-appealing propaganda just
exacerbates the problem, but it's not the root cause.

You make it sound like people end up voting to protect their own interests. A
lot of studies show this is frequently not the case: Far more frequently they
vote their _values_ , which ends up with a very different result. This is why
the Republican "Family Values" theme has been so effective.

>Even if you are the foremost expert on the implications of some political
issue and your facts are indisputable, people will still (with good reason)
disagree on the merits of those indisputable implications.

George Lakoff talks about two major philosophies in the US that define the
Liberal and Conservative movements, respectively. [1] I think he gets to the
heart of the disagreement between these two sides, explaining why large groups
of poor people, for instance, vote Republican despite this being against their
own self interest (workplace safety, minimum wage, workers' rights, etc.).

That said, it seems sometimes that even indisputable facts (dangers of
cigarette smoke, seriousness of lead poisoning, and more recently,
anthropomorphic climate change and the proven failures of "trickle-down"
economics) are frequently politicized such that people end up believing that
there's still a debate among experts, and that all politicians are lying to
support their own side. Propaganda at its best (or worst, I suppose).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29)
or
[http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/elephant](http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/elephant)

------
timinman
I think his 'theory' that discussions have more potential to be divisive when
they involve our identity is dead on. His advice to 'keep your identity
small', follows on from that premise well. Many people let their identity get
polluted by what they do for a living to such an extent that they find it very
difficult to cope when that is taken from them.

I have always been opinionated - I'm analytical and I enjoy forming opinions.
Since moving to Europe, I have learned not to let political opinions become so
ingrained that they become part of my identity. I have seen so many things
done differently and still done well.

My question is this: Which things are worth being part of my identity? Values
I esteem? Relationships I hold dear? Family roles? I think it is fair to say
that belief (or disbelief) in God is a foundational human issue. If you are a
believer, I think that belief demands something - it necessarily becomes part
of your identity. I am a believer, so I don't know if same is true for non-
believers.

~~~
icebraining
_I am a believer, so I don 't know if same is true for non-believers._

Well, everyone is a non-believer in _something_ that others believe. Assuming
you don't believe in, say, Isis, do you think that non-belief becomes part of
your identity?

~~~
timinman
No. I realise that I over-simplified that part by highlighting only two
opposites: belief and unbelief. I do realise there are degrees of distinction
between belief in a deity and atheism, and there are polytheism and
agnosticism as well.

I could have asked a question: for those who don't believe in god(s), is your
Atheism a significant feature of your identity?

~~~
nbouscal
To answer that question: yes, but I wish it didn't have to be. The only reason
atheism is a part of my identity at all is because it makes me a minority, and
one that public opinion in the US ranks below even rapists[1]. If atheism were
the norm and the religious were a minority, atheism would no longer have to be
part of my identity, which I would greatly prefer.

[1]
[http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-25187-001/](http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-25187-001/)

------
sspiff
> There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For
> example, being a scientist.

I know a lot of people who would consider this wrong, and I've noticed that
sometimes, this is correct. I look at things from a scientific point of view,
and because of this, I have a hard time understanding and empathizing with
people with a religious background in discussion on religion.

I think it would be wrong of us to consider science as a concept above the
scrutiny we eagerly apply to religion and politics in this article. Who says
us scientists can't be wrong on an important level about certain things?

~~~
atondwal
I think you're missing the point here. pg's saying the scientist identity is
useful here, not because of science, but because it reminds you not to take
any other identities.

~~~
gbog
Yes. Moreover, relativism has its limits, science and religion cannot be said
equal before scepticism: if you have doubts about a theory or some
experimental results you can and should investigate their truth. While it is
not possible to falsify religious beliefs, or most political views.

------
Ixiaus
First: notice how we are all expressing our opinions :)

 _I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part
of people 's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about
something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan._

(NOTE: I'm not rigorously defining the word "governance" in this response, I
can expand on my meaning further if people are interested)

Paul Graham is on to something in this essay. I think, however, that Carl Jung
pinpointed the exact mechanism with far more accuracy.

Politics and Religion (for many people) in Jung's system of thought are often
vehicles of "transferance", or, the transferring of one's spiritual principle
or governance principle to a receiver (a priest, or politician, or guru)
because people's psyche's are largely unconscious and rarely question or
examine their own identity (consciousness, although Jung has a much deeper
definition of identity). People "transfer" to the closest external match for
that which their unsconscious wishes to have integrated.

Paul's statement about it being a part of their identity is inaccurate because
it's actually the opposite. If the person in question were _not_ transferring
their spiritual principle it would actually be an integrated peice of their
identity and consciousness. There would no longer be an imperative to defend
the vehicle that carries such an important peice of their "self". As people
integrate more of their transfers and projections they have less and less need
to justify their existence because that existence is self-contained rather
than fragmented.

Understanding that the spiritual and governance principles within the psyche
are actually subjective and not objective experiences is a sign of someone
that has _truly identified_ those components. I say "truly identified" not
because truth is defined by an authority or natural principle but because the
person has identified the truth of it in relationship to their own non-
physical (mental/psychological) experience.

~~~
jdc
I think pg is using the word identity differently than you (or Jung) here. He
doesn't attempt to explain the source of the "strong convictions" that drive
political or religious beliefs. He simply observes the connection between the
case where people think of themselves as a certain type of person and
consequently will defend the associated beliefs regardless of evidence.

So there's something about peoples minds that makes it costly for them to
accept certain facts. For a long time now, professing a certain belief with
conviction has been a way of associating yourself with a certain group has had
and continues to have direct implications on a person's physical well-being.
Given acting is hard and cognitive-dissonance is nasty, actually adopting the
belief makes sense.

A more precise way express the essay's thrust might be "don't get attached to
your beliefs."

------
alexvr
Your opinion on politics reveals how you think, which is why people tend to be
defensive of their opinions: They don't know any better -- anything that
directly challenges how they perceive the world is too threatening to be the
subject of a rational conversation. If you talk to someone on a similar
wavelength who has similar experiences, you can probably have a meaningful
conversation. In this case, politics is like music: Not everyone has the same
taste or understands/appreciates the same things, so it's hard to explain the
virtues of Radiohead to someone who only gets a buzz from the best classical
or, forgive my elitism, someone who can't see past Lil Wayne. It's hard for
polar opposites to hold meaningful conversations for the same reason it's hard
for a super smart person to hold a stimulating conversation with an idiot, or
for an old person to do the same with a young person (they're effectively from
different worlds). People on significantly different areas of the spectrum
perceive the world very differently and have dramatically different
experiences to draw on.

------
iancw
> A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same
> way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he's committed
> to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

At the risk of responding out of identity, but also with the hope of
contributing constructively despite having some identity at stake:

A literal interpretation of the bible doesn't preclude accepting natural
selection as an ongoing, observable process. It may reject that process as the
explanation of our species' origins. Those two are often conflated,
contributing to the identity-driven, emotion-filled discussion that PG
describes.

Regarding the main premise of the article, I think it's possible to have
rational, logical discussions about topics in which identity is involved. They
are more challenging than, say, discussing Javascript. But I don't think those
discussions work well on the internet. They require trust (that both parties
will be heard in good faith) careful check of emotions, motivations, and
reasoning. Those are even more challenging without high-bandwidth
communication aids like facial expressions and tone of voice.

~~~
reedlaw
It's quite possible to see flamewars when discussing javascript, e.g. ember vs
angular, OO-style or functional, etc. Or the classic emacs vs vim. So I don't
think argumentativeness is exclusive to politics and religion by any means.

------
lazyjones
Should this "identity" definition also include possible (conscious) vested
interests in the subjects of these discussions? E.g. when people defend
various corporations against their better knowledge, simply because they own a
few shares or their business depends on them. I suspect this to be the case
frequently when, for example, Google's wrongdoings lead to heated discussions
here on HN and elsewhere.

------
catwork
Good essay - as all PG's are.

One critique - a scientist's identity can be in science itself (or its latest
set of widely-held beliefs), which itself can also result in a essentially
political/religious response wrapped up in scientific garb. I am thinking of
periods of time leading up to a paradigm shift where there can be significant
resistance to "where the facts lead" by those invested in defending the status
quo
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Rev...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)).

Certainly, this not the same situation as a purely political or religious
issue. It is worth noting though, since everyone works off of a basic set of
assumptions that are not provable. Each person has a philosophy - a practical
"religion" or "political party" regardless of whether they are officially
associated with any public entity or institution.

------
grandalf
In terms of being rational, identity is just a kind of bias (among many) that
needs to be removed.

I think a slightly more accurate generalization of PG's point is that many
beliefs and belief systems permit learning (changing the belief) in the face
of new evidence or perspective.

The things we most often consider "identity" oriented beliefs are the things
that people are unable or unwilling to question (or to consider that they
might be wrong about).

So a good way to find you own rationality limiting beliefs is to ask "What am
I certain about?".

Politics attempts to solve the coordination problems around use of force,
coercion, bribery, money, and infrastructure.

Identity is simply a useful way to rally voters for a political cause, which
is why it's used by political and religious charlatans alike.

------
fnl
Seems Paul "rediscovered" what Buddhism teaches us: You need to loose your ego
to achieve Nirvana. With the difference that the Buddhists also tell you a
method for going about this... :)

~~~
precisioncoder
Heh, don't you see? By identifying as a Buddhist and classifying a particular
bit of wisdom as "belonging" to that religion you are falling into exactly the
trap that he described. I grew up in the Buddhist community and ironically the
greatest trap that Buddhists fall into is pride. Similar to the technology
community ;)

~~~
fnl
Interesting assumption of yours - where in my post did I identify [myself] as
a Buddhist?

------
reedlaw
This reminded me of point #2 of a comment I just read [1] on mistakes
journalists make:

> "Mention every possible debate on the subject, without attempting to either
> offer a conclusion or a new set of arguments for any of them."

Keeping your identity small may prevent you from participating in certain
arguments but it doesn't make for a good story. I'd rather hear a spirited
debate between proponents of radically different ideas than bland statements
that scrupulously avoid engaging anyone's identy.

The more I think about it the more ridiculous it sounds to exclude things from
one's identity. An exclusive identity is not any smaller than an inclusive one
--it's just identified by its exclusions. Identity is who you are and thus can
be no larger or smaller than the whole of you.

I think the real argument here is one for skepticism as can been seen in the
second footnote:

> "A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same
> way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it."

Really?? First, I don't think biblical literalism requires a rejection of
natural selection (unless that's shorthand for a naturalistic origin of life).
Secondly, this statement itself seems like a religious argument in the sense
that it implies scientists are somehow more detached and objective than
biblical literalists.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6171593](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6171593)

~~~
philwelch
From context it's clear that by "scientist" pg means an idealized scientist,
i.e. a disinterested empiricist. Actual scientists are fallible humans who may
indeed get caught up by identity.

------
DalekBaldwin
Where politics really differs from JavaScript is that we are taught from a
young age that it is _important_ to hold strong opinions about it even if we
know nothing about it. Flaunting one's ignorance is celebrated as civic
engagement. Hell, when politics comes up at holiday dinners, my family gets
more worked up if I recuse myself from discussion than if I say something that
violates their most cherished beliefs.

------
arihelgason
This also applies to professional growth. People often have a hard time
receiving negative feedback because they experience it as an attack on their
identity/ego rather than as an opportunity to learn.

The ability to take feedback constructively is probably one of the most
important traits to hire for.

------
tsax
Evolutionary history probably plays a role here. Science has given evidence
that our faculties of reason are probably meant to persuade and not to reason
about the world in an abstract manner. We probably evolved in hunter-gatherer
tribes of 150-200 people where voice counted for a lot. You can influence by
arguing within a group that small. And losing an argument could mean expulsion
from the group leading to a low-chance of survival.

The problem is that this simply doesn't scale. Arguing political questions
feels as real to us as it did to our hunter-gatherer ancestors whose lives
literally depended on it. But this is just not the case in polities of a few
hundred million. Hence it's likely beneficial to reduce political bickering
for those not involved with politics.

------
jerryhuang100
Some observation on HN these days: Many threads about PERL vs Python ... etc,
.Net, Java, or whatever programming languages some people really hates are
just moving towards polarizations as religion/politics discussions.

------
mcgwiz
In my opinion, he describes a basic mechanism of survival for cultures.
Cultures that inspire such defensive "inability to think clearly" about the
subject have increased survivability (social propagability).

But in order to survive, cultures must also change over time. I see the
mechanism for this change as the individual's improvement of the culture for
oneself, and then attempting to propagate it to insiders and outsiders.
Triggers of this modification include conflicting experience, either direct or
indirect via dialogue/argumentation with others.

------
TausAmmer
Both discussions are fine way to learn. You always learn, even from stack full
of "meaningless" comments. Either you accept it or nor, makes no difference,
you have learned something.

Learned to not read comments or proceed reading and absorbing other people
expressions that you adopt/use willingly/unknowingly.

To decide importance, scale, seriousness or whatnot of discussion, it is up to
individual and for his needs.

Some are more defensive of set value and want to preserve idea. Some give up
ideas to change perspective and understanding regularly. Diversity makes it
all interesting.

------
rokhayakebe
Matters of Fact, vs. Matters of Opinions. I cannot recall which of Socrates'
discourses goes into this in detail (I think Symposium), but it was a nice
read. It makes you really stop and evaluate whether there is a point in having
an argument or not, because when things are matter of opinions you may as well
just accept and respect what the other party says.

------
nandemo
A related idea is expressed by philosopher and mystic Paul Brunton's motto:

    
    
        Study everything, join nothing.
    

Discussed here by Bill Vallicella:

[http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/...](http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/09/study-
everything-join-nothing.html)

------
virtu
I really loved the article, but would go furthermore and say like Mooji find
out what you really are, ask the question who is I behind a thought based
identity. More on yt:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_q6gZkoceg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_q6gZkoceg)

------
bsbechtel
So this raises the question: "How do you coax someone into questioning their
own identity, or perhaps questioning whether they should consider themselves
an x?"

------
stasmo
Can you achieve greatness without passion? Can you feel passionate about a
topic without it creeping into your identity?

I don't claim to know the answers.

------
hugofirth
I don't feel the need to add anything to a discussion on an old article,
except to say that it was very elegantly and succinctly written.

------
NanoWar
I haven't seen any forum topic about politics escalate as quickly as one with
religious discussions...

------
D9u
Among my drinking buddies we have one inviolable and long standing rule:

 _No discussions of religion or politics_

------
PavlovsCat
Hmmmm. I agree that you shouldn't identify with notions and ideas and labels,
because that's just dumb and putting the cart before the horse. But generally,
and ignoring the sensibilities of HN? No to most of that.

I started to care about politics since I saw corpses being shoved into a mass
grave with a caterpillar while switching TV channels when I was a kid, and it
hasn't let up since. Why should it? Politics by definition affects everyone,
in ways that actually matter. Just take the web; it matters because it allows
people to communicate, the people make it matter. Even more so with politics,
which doesn't just affect everybody, everybody owns an equal share of it. Most
people let theirs rot, but they still own it, and if the circus around it has
been made that complex and hidden among many bloated layers of euphemisms and
misdirection, to encourage apathy and and facilitate deception, then those
layers need to be removed, instead of removing the "uneducated" from the
debate. If a simple but adult mind can't understand it, something is fishy.
Politics really isn't that complex as some people would love to make it out to
be, or at the very least, sophistry is not complexity, and this makes for a
huge chunk of political debate and opinions. As Chomsky said in some talk or
other.. when he talks with intellectuals they have a hard time understanding
even the most basic stuff, while some peasants in South America for example
get it right away. I guess their being on the receiving end of it, instead of
trying to rationalize the bloodshed their own gloved hand is doling out (or
the hand of the uncle in whose lap they're sitting), helps.

Also, it reminds me of this quote:

 _The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'survive.' The honest
men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives
disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no
causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of
antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or
enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only
literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist
approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you
don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion,
because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little
balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death;
narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle
burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn._

\-- Sophie Scholl

Safe from what, indeed? From being incorrect? From being inefficient? From
raised blood pressure? Why not try to be safe from standing for nothing? I
don't mean to be polemic but I truly don't get it. What is a "useful
conversation"? Useful for what, exactly? Talking about Javascript is terribly
useless when it comes to being a decent person. Talking about being a decent
person is terribly useless for debugging Javascript. If it has no potential to
make anyone sad, angry or happy, it's likely a gimmick in the bigger scheme of
things. Which is fine for HN I guess, but not for general advice on what kind
of person one should be. Thanks, but no thanks.

------
khitchdee
Good analysis!

~~~
AsymetricCom
It's philosophy, not fact. Take it with a grain of salt.

------
wissler
He's right that people think they can have an opinion on politics or religion
without actually knowing anything, but this is something they are taught to
believe in school and church. It's a result of widespread poor upbringing and
education, it's not an issue of "keeping your identity small".

