This is SUCH "Paul Graham" advice - useful mostly to people who sit on top of a hierarchy of power which does not demand any of their personal attention.
I think the good version of this advice is: actively evaluate what is important to you and what you can do to maintain and further it. We are all involved, to one degree or another, in systems and processes larger than ourselves. By definition, our influence on those systems is limited - but we may be able to increase or decrease our influence through work and engagement. It's healthy to reflect on what you are investing your time and energy into and how those investments will impact your life. There is no single right or wrong answer - but you will benefit from forming an opinion!
It's unhealthy to falsely base your self-worth on giant political movements outside your control - but it's equally unhealthy to ignore the impact you experience from the issues of the day. Be reflective in how you associate yourself with things, but no one should pretend that they are not subject to the world (unless, it seems, you're at a "Paul Graham" level of wealth and independence).
What a weird take. None of this has anything to do with wealth or class. It's about avoiding making arbitrary things so dear to you that you are unable to question anything about them, or even have productive, honest discussions about them.
Your "good version" doesn't really make sense to me, and seems to have nothing to do with what the article is about.
It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should get about javascript is one of them).
So what? Graham isn't talking about all that other stuff! He's just talking about "things people make a part of their identity" (for whatever reason, whether that's by choice or through a failure to resist outside pressure), and what the possible negative effects can be.
I frankly don't care that Graham is rich and influential and maybe has an easier time of controlling what he thinks of himself than other people do. "Keep things out of your identity" is useful advice, even if some people will unavoidably find that harder to do because of their social/economic status.
And I disagree that it applies to very few conversations. This can easily apply to the big stuff, like what some people are talking about in other threads on this post, when it comes to dealing with issues that affect marginalized groups. I think people like that are a fine example of when it can be hard to keep things out of your identity. As much as your identity (I prefer "core self-image", which I think is clearer) is your choice, often external factors will pressure you into choosing in certain ways. But I think it does harm discussions about those topics when people have made it such a core part of themselves that they can't see what kinds of persuasion other people would respond best to. I unfortunately see that sort of thing pretty often.
Put another way: yes, Graham is probably the kind of person for whom it is not hard to set his own identity without all that much outside pressure. He's rich and influential. Other people will get put into boxes and groups by others who are more powerful than they are. And these less-powerful people will have a harder time keeping those things from seeping into their own identities. But that doesn't change the (IMO) correctness of Graham's message that it is useful to resist that pressure, even if it's harder for some people to do so.
To me, the core of what I am pointing out as "very Paul Graham" is in these two quotes:
> I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions. and If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity[...]
To view discussions where people get upset as "useless" reflects a certain hierarchy of the purposes of discussion and the goals of inquiry. The same is true for prioritizing the kind of impassioned discussions that Graham is talking about here. His advice is good (Paul Graham is not dumb!) if you feel the same way and value this kind of high minded dispassionate discussion.
Perhaps what I should have said is that I believe most people do not feel they suffer when they experience (and voice) the emotional weight of conversations. They suffer because they feel unseen and unheard in those conversations - the conflict is a symptom, not the disease. There's nothing wrong with wanting people to discuss things they care deeply about dispassionately - but there's nothing right about it either. It reflects a certain hierarchy of values and goals that are, again, "very Paul Graham." It sounds like those values are very you too! Which is fine!
This advice will make you better able to engage in the way that Paul Graham wants to engage! I certainly agree with that. But I do not think it is "better" in a particularly universal way.
At the bottom what you're saying is no one is right about anything ever and its all just opinions and value systems maaaan. Sure if you define a value system where yelling a lot and accomplishing little is the goal then mission accomplished, but I don't think its classist to say that's a pretty shit value system. It certainly isn't as good a value system as any other in the sense that there's some alternate universe where the conventionally successful people have those values and the conventionally unsuccessful have the PG-of-our-universe values.
> if you feel the same way and value this kind of high minded dispassionate discussion.
Shouldn't we all value that type of discussion? After all, it's most likely to lead to the objectively correct answers to questions about facts, and optimal answers to questions about policies.
Follow-up: I'm going to attempt a dispassionate discussion about something that, for better or worse, is a big part of who I am.
I'm visually impaired, to the point of being legally blind. Due to some kind of flaw in my development, my optic nerves didn't fully develop (optic nerve hypoplasia), so my visual acuity is far enough below normal that, for example, I can't drive a car, I can only read print up close unless it's huge, and I use a white cane (and often, let's be honest, a sighted guide) to get around in unfamiliar environments.
Should people like me exist? I think if it had been feasible in 1980 to detect the flaw in my development and abort me before my family could develop any emotional attachment to me, it would have been morally acceptable, and perhaps even optimal, to do so. Of course, that wasn't feasible back then, but if our technological development continues, it will be someday, and we, including people like me, will need to consider the moral question rationally, even dispassionately.
Of course, disabled people like me can live full, happy lives, and many do. But it's not guaranteed that we all will. Though my own circumstances are pretty good (in some ways, very fortunate), there are aspects of me, beyond the original impairment, that could objectively be considered suboptimal. There are totally blind people who are much better at navigating unfamiliar environments and living independently than I am. For whatever reasons, attempts to teach me those skills in my childhood and adolescence didn't work very well. To some extent it might even be my own fault. If I hadn't had the natural aptitude and curiosity for programming, and the privileged circumstances to be able to develop that skill (e.g. a family computer when I was 8 years old and ample leisure time for playing with it), I might be far worse off now. Considering how high unemployment is among working-age blind people, I got very lucky. Many of us, even in developed countries, are not so lucky.
In some ways I'm a walking stereotype. I'm musically talented, though I don't make my living from that. I do make my living from being a programmer working on accessibility for people like me. When I read Eric Raymond's "Why I Hate Identity Politics", I wish that my blindness were as incidental to my identity as his cerebral palsy is to his identity. Attempts in my childhood and adolescence to make me well-adjusted and well-rounded, i.e. "normal", weren't very successful. Of course, that could just mean I'm a nerd, but in some contexts, that could be considered an additional handicap.
Even those of us who have mastered all the right skills are often thwarted by gaps in accessibility. The assumption that everyone can see is everywhere. Correcting that assumption, and doing the hard work to make a UI accessible to disabled people, is a never-ending job. That may be job security for a few of us, as long as someone is willing or compelled to pay for it. But in the meantime, people fail to get a job, or even lose a job that they already had, due to an inaccessible application, or even a whole category of such applications. On a smaller scale, people are frequently frustrated while trying to accomplish simple tasks due to gaps in accessibility.
So, to get back to the loaded moral question I raised above, I think it stands to reason that, to modify a popular saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of training and accommodation.
Of course, for those of us that already exist, the latter is still necessary. How much accommodation we should require is another question, though. I'm willing to consider that, beyond a certain point, it's simply unreasonable to expect the whole rest of the world to accommodate a minority like the one that I belong to. I don't know where that cutoff point is, but I lean toward the view that our tools, such as screen readers, should do everything they can to adapt to the world as it is, rather than requiring everyone else to change the way they do things just for us.
There's a difference between what you yourself believe is core to who you are, and what other people would say is core. They both get called identity, but I think Paul Graham is talking about the first, which is something you really are allowed to choose in the privacy of your own head.
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 tool for the job based on evidence or metrics, it's about a belief system that the tribe's preferred framework is always the right tool for the job.
Ultimately I think Paul was right and I think about this essay a lot. The best solution is to make as few things part of your identity as possible. For JS devs, that means you should be more willing to use a different framework from time to time or no framework at all. Decide what to use based on an objective assessment of what the right tool for the job is, not what's trendy in your tribe.
JavaScript is just wrong example. It very early has become uber-tool, when appear first specification of ECMA-script (essentially same gramma, but was universal language not tied to eny platform or specifics).
But if talk about business, I remember Ford's phrase: "develop product, which will fit expectations of 80% of your clients; 10% will just change mind; 10% will pay additional money for customization".
I think there's an industry trend or career pressure towards being a member of a JS "tribe". Companies don't believe in people learning new technologies, instead they only want people with lots of experience in their specific framework and nothing more.
I've used React, Vue, Elm, Vanilla JS, and some legacy JQuery in production over my last three years of work (along with Next, Nuxt, Gatsby, Hugo, and many others).
I thought that would make me a well rounded candidate with an understanding of different trade offs and an ability to pick up new things. Now that I'm looking for a new job though it seems like most places are looking to hire someone 100% React dev, and my history of framework diversity has become more of a liability than an asset somehow.
In tech, people ascribe you an identity as much as you claim one yourself.
When I am not around, I have been described to people as "A DevOps guy" or "A Network Guy". People then treat me accordingly. But, being human (or an approximation thereof), I am not just one thing.
I often skip the fact that i work in tech in certain circles in the beginning.
Instead i'm just a business consultant, or working with project management.
Probably a bit cowardlike but people really love to put other people in boxes and for a lot of people working in tech means "oh so you're one of those super nerdy people that is naively optimistic about technology, is socially stunted, loves infantile pop culture and has zero sense of aesthetics" as an example.
And not that there is anything wrong with being that type of person (i also have some of those traits) there is very limited elasticity in peoples image of you after you've told what you work with, at least in Scandinavia where "you are your career".
I have a friend who works on movie productions and everyone always seem to find it amazing and extrapolate all kinds of positive stuff about him, while the opposite can happen with tech and unless i also make some weird underhanded disclaimers like "I'm actually also really into x genre of music and have played since i was a kid" or "well i actually love reading obscure literature", "i actually really like travelling, that's why this career was so great for me" people will just assume i do nothing besides program 24/7 - hyperbole yes but still.
> "oh so you're one of those super nerdy people that is naively optimistic about technology, is socially stunted, loves infantile pop culture and has zero sense of aesthetics"
> "oh so you're one of those super nerdy people that is naively optimistic about technology, is socially stunted, loves infantile pop culture and has zero sense of aesthetics" as an example.
for once I'm glad to be the opposite to the usual trope.. but I feel you it is tiring to be interrogated over the location of my non-existent funko-pop cache just because I write code. Even saying "I swear I don't write Js" doesn't protect you these days.
Come on, the dentist is also the dentist... taking those titles to personally imo is a too big identitiy to start with. We know you are all individuals ;)
I've always tried to go with (or steer toward) something like "a problem solver".
I just like to solve problems. Sometimes it's builds and deploys, sometimes it's the network, and sometimes it's the car in the driveway. Give me a few, I'll figure something out.
If I take a nap, I’m solving the problem of being tired. If I go grocery shopping, I’m solving the problem of not having food in my house. If I drink water, I’m solving the problem of being thirsty. If I play a video game, I’m solving the problem of being bored. All human activity is problem solving.
> In tech, people ascribe you an identity as much as you claim one yourself.
Indeed that is true of most kinds of identity. People will ascribe you racial and gender identities which may or may not match the ones you wish to claim for example.
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.
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.
Poor kid. He's been subjected to what amounts to child abuse. Sadly, that is the norm.
Some say that we have an identity crisis in part because of our liberal, existentialist, non-committal notions of "freedom". It's also what drives much of the opportunism of FOMO and ADHD. The very notions of sacrifice, commitment, suffering for a good, and devotion repel us (whatever "commitments" we do have are merely emotional phantasms, changing as the wind blows). We reject our familial, communal, ethnic, national, religious commitments -- even commitment to the truth as such -- which we have come to detest as "restrictive" or "oppressive" in favor of a misguided notion of "autonomy"...except that this "autonomy" is achieved precisely by rejecting all that helps us understand who we are from different angles and at varying depths. We become socially alienated and cut off from tradition as such, saddled now with the responsibility of figuring it all out ourselves. What a Herculean task!
Of course, nature abhors a vacuum. The irony is that the abolition of authority and tradition only predisposes us to the tyranny of power. (Incidentally, that's how "community organizing" works: it foments animosity against legitimate authority and its legitimate exercise and then uses it to unseat that authority, whether personal or in the form of tradition, not to "free" people from the real or imagined tyranny of that authority, but to remove what is an obstacle to the power of the dictator who outstrips any of the abuses of his predecessors.) Nobody is easier to control than an ignorant, irrational, atomized human being enslaved to his emotions and to his desires, in a state of fear, disorientation, and disregulation. A man has as many masters as he has vices, spake Augustine.
It is little wonder that, given this crippled and desiccated state, we look for our "identities" in superstition and petty nonsense and in what remains, what is base, as if we were trying to divine the future from tea leaves. We think that the kernel of the "true self" lies hidden in what is base, not in human nature as a whole and what it is ordered toward. Reason is a liar. The orgasm is our beatific vision. Consumption is our creed. Emotion is our revelation.
"Child abuse"? Please, give me a break. This is no different to any kid muddling through adolescence and trying to make sense of their emotions as they grow up. Just because it's about gender and sexuality doesn't make it child abuse.
While the comment above is verbose to the brink of bombasticity, it drives a strong point. A child needing their gender identity diagnosed is a far cry from the perils of adolescence that past societies encountered.
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. The pushing seldom convinces others. But as students pound into their mental habits what they are pushing out, the students are often permanently damaged. Educational institutions that create a climate where much of this goes on are, I think, irresponsible. It is important not to thus put one’s brain in chains before one has come anywhere near his full potentiality as a rational person
~~~ Charlie Munger
Edit:
just like the mental process described by PG has a strong taste of Popper's judgement on "Marx Hegel and Freud" - a consolidated cultural idea -, the warning against "identifications" has had quite strong proponents. One of them (indirectly but encompassing) is over 2500 years old and "quite preponderant".
> 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.
Most people aren't using paraconsistent logic, especially on Internet forums (unfortunately).
Furthermore, the sentence '"Identifications" are mental conditionings that make you lose intellectual freedom" is not really in line with paraconsisent logic. The loss of intellectual freedom comes about from being stuck on a recognized facet of your identity and unable to think of your identity as having a conflicting facet. If people could reason by freely jumping between towers of inferences regardless of the apparent conflict between them, then labeling yourself with identities wouldn't have the downside.
"Queer" is a vague identity with political connotations, by which I mean, the gay people who call themselves "queer" tend to be a lot more woke-leftist than the gay people who don't call themselves "queer". It's absolutely an idea and a constructed identity. The facts of the matter are things like sexual preferences and behaviors, but you don't inherently need to construct an identity around them. On the other hand, sometimes you need to be aware that even if you don't identify yourself, you will be identified by others, which you're going to have to deal with.
I think you've both got the right answer and explained it with a very negative framing.
Gender and Sexual Minority, LGBTQ+, and queer all describe a largely similar set of folks.
Queer arose not from "woke-leftist" spaces, but grew out of 70s and 80s radical gay and trans spaces - groups like the Gay Liberation Front - who were willing to fight back (violently if necessary) against violence and discrimination.
Queer is absolutely a political identity, a framing of ones gender or sexual identity. They intersect with one another. It's not unlike "I eat only plants" vs "I'm vegan", they mean roughly the same thing until you hit contexts where they don't.
I'm not a native speaker, not in the know of the nuances of those terms, just accepted the one you chose.
There's a point that I still don't understand. The article advices to keep identity as a minimum. Not having none, just not including every circumstance or opinion in your identity. The reason is that a fat identity makes you more vulnerable to bias.
Is being queer a fundamental part of your identity? Or is it something subject to change like "being a JavaScript programmer" or something like that?
The place where I was born... that is a fact, I neither can nor want to change that. I consider it a part of my identity but, at the same time, I try to take some distance from it so I can examine my own opinions and decisions.
Even at some moments I wonder what would I think if I had been born elsewhere or if I change nationality. But that doesn't mean I'm going to do that. That runs deep, but being an X programmer, a X-ist, a morning person, if I prefer cats or dogs, a member of NNN generation... that's circumstancial for me.
Whether you're sexually attracted to men or women isn't something that can change, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to enshrine it as a significant part of your identity. This is actually where the semantic nuances come fully into play. People who identify as queer are consciously choosing to identify as queer. There are gay men and lesbian women who don't identify as queer. Sometimes that's because they don't agree with the radical orientation of the people who do identify as queer, sometimes that's because they don't like the word itself, and sometimes it's because they don't feel a sense of group identity with everyone under the "queer" umbrella.
> Queer arose not from "woke-leftist" spaces, but grew out of 70s and 80s radical gay and trans spaces
I guess "radical" would have been a better choice of terminology than "woke-leftist", but really you're looking at very similar communities that share an ideological heritage and who tend to complain about any terminology people use for them. The term "woke" is new but the basic ideology goes back to 70's radicals as well.
I would add, "woke" is not necessarily a negative label, and indeed was originally used most commonly in a positive sense intended to describe people who were awake to the reality of the world. It's only more recently come to be used a pejorative mocking the original usage.
I wouldn’t even say it’s all pejorative mockery. Setting aside the negative connotation, I think we all know what ideas and movements the term “woke” refers to, and the people on that side of the discussion haven’t, to my knowledge, agreed to any other nomenclature they would prefer, which means the only people using the term are the ones criticizing the underlying group of ideas and movements, which is where the negative connotation comes from. (And then some of those critics unfairly overgeneralize, similarly with the term “socialist”.)
If you act according to your Real Preference RP, then RP is a fact; if you Role-Play, it is also a constraint.
Edit: there is also a notable third position: when you act from a what you judge a Right Position RP - you do what is right. It must be noted because it may look like an "identification", but it is different in important ways.
I would argue that no identity is a fact. All identities are beliefs on the part of the person doing the identifying. To identify something as X is to express the belief that it is X.
This reminds me a class very long ago, when the teacher wrote two contradictory definitions of style in the blackboard, one saying that style is what the authors have in common with their school, the other saying that style is what the authors have that others don't.
Of course, those were defining two different concepts: the style of a school and the personal style.
To be precise, identity is very easy to define: it's to be you, instead of anyone else. Until someone invents some kind of brain trasplant, it's impossible to transfer consciousness, so your identity is your body, more specifically, your brain. That would include your memories that, although can be erased by trauma or illness, are mostly very strongly rooted.
Outwards, it would expand to your habits, your chemistry, your beliefs. All that can change, but it's difficult. So it's more your personality than your identity.
Then there is "identity" that isn't. More like being part of a group, so it's parallel situation to that of style. You identify yourself with a group, you define yourself as the sum of the groups you include yourself in. Identity is very much about individuality. "Identity" seems to be the opposite: the inabilty to be someone on your own.
Unless we're getting to some deep metaphysical stuff, I don't think I buy that. Yes, some identities are solely based on belief. But others are indeed based on facts: someone might identify as "basketball player" because they play basketball. Or they might identify as "tall" because they are in the top 10% of people for height. The height example might sound silly, but there are people who are somehow "proud" of these sorts of traits that they have no control over.
Certainly the situations can sometimes change: the basketball player might stop playing basketball and no longer identify as such. And I suppose someone who has never played basketball in their life could adopt the identity of "basketball player" if they wanted to, but... that's fine, that would be a case where that particular person's identity is based on a belief (or delusion).
I'm not talking about what the identity is based on. I'm talking about what the identity itself is. I think this is useful to help clarify the difference between "X has the identity Y" and "X is Y" which otherwise seem very similar. The former means that "someone believes (or many people believe) that X is Y".
Literally anyone can be Christian, but that doesn't make it a useless tag. It's a linguistic and mental shortcut that has utility despite the relative ease of application.
They do, and some will absolutely do (to some it is important to "assess" language) - it really depends on what you mean with "people" (of course I meant a subset).
What happened there is, in the succession of editings I left that 'people' there in a way that happened to be ambiguous. I made a composition error out of inattention.
No. It is not a matter of being «native». It may be your mothertongue of not: it is an approach transversal to all (this class of) languages.
It is the set of those people who intend to speak English, though surely not the language in use among the English. "Currently typical" English does not mean "good" English.
Edit:
On the contrary, «native English speakers» are the one who will follow that: they are the ones supposed to have absorbed more English (and relevant) literature.
I have just checked and I see the terms employed correctly in Joyce, in Wilde, in Chandler, in Hammett, in Paul Johnson, in Niall Ferguson, in Woody Allen, in Spike Milligan.
As absolutely expected: there is the gathering of the Assessors.
Of course queer as "unusual" predates "queer" as gay. :D It's a reclaimed slur. It was a negative label applied to people who ultimately decided to make that negative label a part of their identity.
[...] To my info, the first use of 'queer' for "homosexual" is from 1922, and the term was used for "eccentric" for the last five centuries.
('gay' for homosexual was reported as widespread "communitarian" use in medical texts in the 1940's - the use for "promiscuous" is at least four centuries old. In some territories, 'gay girl' still means "prostitute".)
Edit:
I misread your post. Of course, "of course" ""queer" for homosexual" can easily be a "reclaimed slur". There should be no surprise about it.
And your use of 'gay' in «"queer" as gay» is "queer". That is not ""queer" as gay", it is "queer" as "unaligned in sexual orientation", and not necessarily "gay". Just nitpicking on language though.
Generally in a political sense (related to the gay sense). Someone who does not accept heterosexuality as a norm or default way of being, even though it may something that they personally prefer.
The author may be suffering from a form of blub paradox when it comes to how he identifies, which I would assume include white, male, rich, smart, founder, and writer.
It's easy for him to discard "lesser" identities like "javascript programmer" because that doesn't cost him anything.
Wrong assumption. We do not necessarily "identify". All those terms in that list can be fully avoided as identifications. No, it is not normal to be "identified" with any of that.
The idea the author is talking about is explicitly not the "I am..." stuff. The "I consider myself to be..." stuff is what is important to his thesis that the "descriptors you hold dear to your self-image" (which he calls "identity", but I agree that can be an ambiguous term) can blind you to opinions and evidence contrary to what you already believe, and make it difficult (if not impossible) to have honest conversations about things.
I may literally be an average-height, average-build, bald, white man, but I don't consider any of those things to define me; they are not central to my self-image (at least I don't think they are; it's possible I've let some of that creep into my psyche more than I'd like). Yes, they are literally a part of my "identity", but not in the way that is relevant to anything the author is talking about.
No, you are misunderstanding what is meant with "identification" in these texts. The starting point is PG's text.
It is about how "identification" clouds your judgement. If you can just describe yourself ("happen to be male") that is one thing; if when you think of yourself you cannot abstract from some attributes, there is where you have "caged" yourself.
Not sure what your point is? It's okay to be white (or any other ethnicity), and it's okay to be queer - no matter how many people would tell you otherwise. That doesn't mean you have to take either of these and make it the be-all and end-all of your identity. The difference should be obvious - it was surely obvious enough to PG.
He doesn't tell you to stop being x. The title says keep your identity small, implying he knows it's impossible.
I'm not saying this is true, it's obviously not, but what if we lived in a universe where science objectively found that being queer was an actual disease and could be cured with a pill? This is the science and logic in that universe. So in that universe does your identity then preclude you from having a scientific and logical conclusion about being queer? If you didn't have that identity I would say it would be easier to be objective about that topic in that universe?
This is the thing Graham is talking about. I hope you can see the purpose of the (obviously untrue and just hypothetical) example, despite it being negatively related to your identity. I think it's still possible to disassociate a little bit even if it's an intrinsic part of your identity.
Good point. The essay misses examples of what is an inescapable part of one's identity.
To answer other commenters: sometimes being queer can be as obvious to others as your skin color (because you are holding the hand of your partner, because you are at the beginning of a transition, etc...) and, using PG's criteria, is one of those things that other people will discuss without expertise (sometimes very negatively).
And, even if it is not obvious that one is queer, it is one of those topics where showing that you belong to that group (when you can afford it physically and mentally) is important. Both as a signal to other members (to show them that they are not alone) and as a way to normalize your identity (which, in the longer run and as a group effort, helps a lot to reduce bad reactions).
You're also conflating unchangeable characteristics (such as skin color, or sexual orientation) and some feeling of group belonging. We would certainly find it a bit weird if someone felt that they "belonged" in a valued group merely due to, e.g. having light-colored skin, and expressed a need to "show off" that specific fact about themselves to others. That's key to the "identity" distinction PG is making here.
This feels like a false dichotomy: while you cannot change your sexual orientation, you can choose to make it more apparent and it has clear benefits for other lgbtq+ people around you (which, for me, gets it out of the selfish connotations of showing off: wherever you live, being openly gay still carries a non-zero physical risk, you don't do it just for the fun of it).
At the risk of being wildly misunderstood, you can still choose to minimize your "queerness footprint" in public discussions. You can let your experience with that inform your opinions without making it into An Issue that you are queer.
It's not easy, but it's possible and I think a lot of our perception of people "at the top" being uniformly a particular profile is partly a reflection of the fact that people who get good at not making their identity into An Issue are the ones who get more tolerance in public spaces. I think this gets misinterpreted by many people as "That person is not queer" rather than "We don't know. They haven't actually said and it is a private matter anyway."
> You can let your experience with that inform your opinions without making it into An Issue
Right, and that's exactly the point of the article that I think a lot of people aren't getting here. Even the things that you "objectively are" need not be these "core self-image" things that can lead to blind spots and a lack of ability to have reasonable discussion. But it's certainly understandable when something like that does become core, especially when someone has experienced discrimination or oppression because of it.
> I think this gets misinterpreted by many people as "That person is not queer" rather than "We don't know. They haven't actually said and it is a private matter anyway."
I think the "that person is not queer" often comes from a place of frustration that the person "at the top" isn't using their position and status to help normalize being queer (or whatever the marginalized group is). And that not doing that is essentially hiding and trying to fit in (and, further, "denying who they are"), in order to attain and keep those "on the top" benefits and status.
Personally, I think it's not ok to expect someone to become an activist (or at least publicly acknowledge who they "are") just because they have position and status, but I can understand why it's frustrating when someone doesn't.
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.
My view is that having a "small identity" is basically impossible in any practical sense. Many issues are inherently subjective, and even for issues that are (philosophically speaking) objective, actual human individuals rarely have the time or the access to data to form a genuinely objective view. We all use heuristic thinking, all the time, which is inevitably massively biased by all kinds of things related to our dispositions and prior experiences (aka identity).
The danger is when you make the fiction of "not having an identity" a big part of your actual identity, which can make you even more blind to your biases than everyone else.
I think a much more productive route to being a more effective thinker is to accept you have an identity just the same as everyone else - and invest time and effort into interrogating what that identity is and what biases and blind-spots it might lead to. This is still far from perfect, of course.
You can also just not take a stance on many things. I feel like a lot of the things we feel strongly about, and often end up as parts of our identity, just... don't really matter. For things where you do need to take a stance, perhaps because there's a decision that needs to be made, there's still a difference between holding a loose opinion (that you allow to be challenged, and are willing to change your mind in the face of new evidence or a better argument), and making that opinion a part of your very core (where you will just stand firm and ignore all criticism).
Your identity is not fully in your control but not fully out of it either. One can make a conscious choice to “find a tribe” or to not do that.
I believe this essay argues that one should make a conscious choice to avoid tribe affiliation (even if that affiliation is only in your own head) in order to be a better thinker.
I guess I'm arguing that a conscious choice not to find a tribe just leads to unconsciously finding a tribe instead.
Maybe the real answer is both, though - try to consciously avoid tribal thinking, but also acknowledge that it's likely to creep in anyway, and be aware when it does.
First of all, your interpretation of "identity" is structural, "the current state of the WeltAufbau" - f(x,P)=y where P you call 'identity', but others would call more a "personality" (philosophically) or simply, rephrasing the above, "the current state of your Belief Theory" (in technical logical terms).
An "identity", in this context, is structurally more like a "loop" into a "role-playing referencing". It is not just that "such is the inner form of the function", but that the "function took extra assumptions intentionally".
Intellectual care is a basic intellectual duty, it works in the said "current state" framework, and if leaning into checking the risks of "identity" can be formulated as «"be aware that you may have unchecked sides"». That does not mean that "anyone would have an attachment to a perspective" - they may just have a de facto, flexible perspective, without the cageing attachment.
"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.
Maybe better advice is to not take on as identities things that you just took over from other people without questioning. Also know what the other side is thinking before deciding what belongs in your identity and what not. There are things that you should believe because you are you. There are also things that should be firmly rejected. It actually takes a fair bit of living before one knows things definitively. But there is also the danger of being too open minded. One can be so open minded that ones brain falls out...
Religion is not a tool, unlike programming language, limited by definition, Religion is Universe, with endless number of variants.
Some religions, like protestants, are by definition distributed, they just have not some acknowledged position on many questions.
But if we talk about business, this is exact hit, in business, to convince client, you should have narrow offer, which fit this client believes, nothing more.
Why so, if you widen offer, because of steel triangle of PM, you have to raise costs, and/or lower quality.
And yes, I know about smartphones, but my estimation, at least, 10-25% of HN discussions, are about low quality of widened solutions, including smartphones, or about excellence of narrow solutions, like C64, or ST.
Mr. Graham does have a big political identity (on twitter). Sure, he shares more anecdotes about raising his kids than "anti-woke" messages, but it doesn't hold up against this essay.
Heaven hates what it hates, who knows the reason why? Therefore even the sage treats some things as difficult. The way of heaven excels in overcoming though it does not contend, in responding though it does not speak, in attracting though it does not summon, and in laying plans though it appears slack.
Train yourself to argue all sides of political - religious questions with equal fervor. However, as the author notes, it's not wise to over-identify with the various different positions (that way lies schizophrenia).
This used to be something people were trained in as a matter of course, wasn't it? There were debate clubs, things like that. Now people are often just trained to regurgitate stale talking points, off the offically approved list provided by the appropriate authority figure.
Paul Graham predicted the religious wars that produce talking about React and React Native. This includes people that develop using Electron.
You cannot possibly fathom to have a productive conversation with them about less resource-hungry, better-performant alternatives.
It all basically boils down to: "Who are you to tell me I'm wrong if React is what puts food on my table?" which is fine in principle, but blinds them on ways to make their job easier and better in so many ways.
Counterpoint: a strong sense of identity is a crucial ingredient for a meaningful life. Studies have consistently shown that actively religious people are happier that their non-religious counterparts. Identities can grant access to social networks, epitomized in conventions attracting thousands of people who gleefully share an identity (e.g., DEF CON for hackers). Etc.
counter-counterpoint: studies (that is to say the modern ritual of writing papers about spuriously finding statistical correlations using language and processes specific to your academic tribe) have consistently found positive effects of both.
On the one hand you have the supposed positive effects of accepting identities of the in-group, but you have to be very careful about how you structure and interpret these, because as you've inadvertently pointed out, what you're often really getting is access to social networks and resources. you also have to be very careful to interpret the positive outcomes of such if they're part of groups that actively discriminate, target or persecute out-member groups. gays, foreigners, races, genders other-identies can also be shown to often have negative effects using similar methods, and of course naive methods do find significantly worse outcomes amongst many life measures from such groups (which is not really surprising, because the in-group often treats them like shit).
but studies have also shown consistent positive effects from dropping identities. i.e. stopping identifying with criminal groups, removing limiting beliefs and cognitive barriers associated with identities, and positive associations with Buddhist-esque religions and practices associated with traditionally non-identity building beliefs and practices (meditation, anatman, western psychological methods and treatments associated- derived from such etc).
personally, I fall on the less identity side of things, just speaking as someone on the side of the unique position of being involved with statistics, religion, economics, and psychology.
Counterpoints and counter-counterpoints mentioning all these "studies" and yet not a single concrete example is given. It's a shame when online discussion and debate devolves into "here's my point just take my word for it".
> 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...
Unfortunately this is not true anymore for JavaScript. People will get into intense arguments over TS vs JS, React, etc and argue from the same position of "faith" or strongly held beliefs rather than logic.
It's like tolerance of everything except intolerance.
Does that make you intolerant, ot is it semantic wordplay used to confuse and befuddled?
Edit: Just noticed, PG said it better, unsurprisingly. FTA:
> There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn't commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a biblical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he's committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.
It's not, though. You're given all kinds of labels as you go through life whether you want it or not. If you don't act on that, you're accepting the defaults. That doesn't mean there are no labels on you.
No, not everyone is labeled by default. Labels are used to describe or identify a person or group, and not everyone uses or identifies with labels. Some people may choose to use labels to describe themselves or their experiences, while others may not feel that any existing labels accurately reflect who they are. It is ultimately up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to use labels to describe themselves or their experiences.
Everyone is labeled by default. Unless you weren't assigned a gender at birth, don't have a skin color, don't have sexual preferences, didn't have an economic situation you grew up in, didn't have a family with either single parents or multiple payments, etc etc
Labels can be both self-imposed and given. A self-imposed label is one that a person chooses to use to describe themselves or their experiences. For example, someone might choose to use the label "vegan" to describe their dietary habits because they feel that it accurately reflects their values and beliefs. On the other hand, a given label is one that is applied to a person or group by someone else. For example, a teacher might use the label "gifted" to describe a student who excels in a particular subject. In this case, the label is not chosen by the student, but is applied to them by the teacher.
You're missing the point of the article by discussing given labels.
I'm sure you've labeled others with at least one and possibly been labeled with one you weren't happy about that didn't fit your identity. There are so many more and you use them without thinking.
You've taken this discussion off course by discussing given labels.
If you decide to self label as a 'creep' or 'success' then it's relevant to this thread's discussion. If people just decide to label you as a 'creep' or 'success' then it's not relevant.
You could, in theory, make a label out of not labeling yourself but that isn't what we're talking about.
I can see how labels are useful for finding community. One potential negative of using labels to find a community is that labels can be exclusive. For example, a label like "LGBTQ+" may exclude people who do not identify as part of that community, even if they have similar experiences or interests. This can create a sense of exclusion and may prevent people from finding the support and connection they are looking for.
LGBTQ+ (and variations) are more category than label. We combine our powers because we're all too tiny to deal with all the labels and violence foisted upon us alone. Whether you can choose one of the labels is a matter of debate within the category. For most of us, it's like breathing air for the first time: "oh, I'm not alone in this. Other people feel this way, and they've fought all these battles so I don't have to start from 0." To choose it without that experience is kind of weird, but I don't personally have a problem with it in most cases.
Thought provoking post, but the idea doesn't work.
Yes, people are less inclined to get into arguments about specific technical tools if they are not educated about them. Yes, people DO get into arguments about religion even if they aren't educated about it.
The difference is that religion addresses matters that ARE central to people's identity. It addresses choices that EVERYONE must make, and therefore everyone has a stake in it, unlike an arcane programming language that only impacts a few people.
> The difference is that religion addresses matters that ARE central to people's identity. It addresses choices that EVERYONE must make
In the essay, identity is associated with a particular religious/political/social perspective on the human condition, not the human condition itself. Keeping identity small is basically converging on "being human"-- the choices everyone must make as you note -- without the false certainty that comes with loyalty to a religious/political/social identity.
There could be a hidden assumption behind Graham's idea, which is that everyone (that matters) shares his beliefs. Often in the West, secular liberalism is the assumed religion and news articles, books, conversations all implicitly assume it. To people completely immersed in this paradigm, religion is merely external decoration, like a costume, that is exterior to an assumed identical core belief.
People who make this assumption got a rude shock around the time of the ISIS attacks, when they found that some people who grew up in French housing estates behaved in extremely strange and troubling ways.
Ideas have consequences, and religion is the set of ideas about the matters of utmost consequence. These ideas are inherently part of people's identity.
> For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't.
Might this not be because we don't have sufficient information on Bronze Ages battles to know the context behind them? Whereas in a relatively modern-day battle we'll know about the primary aggressor, their rationale, etc. which are all a basis for further discussion.
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.
I must have missed it at the time, otherwise I would remember this gem:
Because the point at which this happens depends on the people rather than the topic, it's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer.
Not sure if it depends on people or interests, probably a combination of both, but there's so many of those problems with obvious solutions that are discussed endlessly.
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.
There are cases where someones entire life is founded on a lie and that no productive discussion is possible. Sure you can "discuss" these topics amicably but they always end up "agreeing to disagree". Nothing was changed, the needle wasn't moved.. the discussion was useless and unproductive.
The truly challenging question here is HOW do you have a truly productive discussion around these topics. Graham is right. The ONLY way is for someone to give up his identity. True dispassion. That is the only time when someone can truly discuss these hard topics "productively". There is literally no other way.
Your method involves sort of dancing around the controversial topic and having useless but amicable discussions. I think your advice leads to unproductive conversations and it's also really obvious knowledge that everyone is somewhat aware about.
But I'm happy to hear other peoples opinions! We can agree to disagree.
You are missing an important point of the poster: you have to abandon cageing self-prejudice - but at the same time, a similar operation should done one the image of the other. Give up identities (self-side) and give up prejudice (other-side).
People can change opinion on subjects they learned after ~18 years of age, not so much opinions formed at an early age, which constitute "identity". Deep layers in the network are hard to relearn.
> 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.
That is a damn broad brush he is painting with. This is in the nature of "enlightened centrism" BS. Claiming partisans cannot have a fruitful discussion is simply unsupportable.
For sure, if neither party has any real knowledge and it's just identity at stake, then it will be fruitless. If the people involved care only about ego preservation and not learning, then it will be fruitless. But someone can be partisan, knowledgeable, and able to discuss things rationally.
He didn't say they couldn't discuss things rationally, he said they couldn't have a fruitful argument.
I'm not sure what he meant by this, but to me a fruitful argument is one where one or more sides learn something, and/or one party changes another's mind on a subject.
Very often, with religion and politics especially, everyone's already made up their minds. They know the right answer. There's certainly no chance that they're mistaken. Regardless of how rationally the topic is being discussed, there's no learning going on, it's just a performative recital. IMO it's better just not to get involved in conversations like these (I'm personally bad at this, though).
I think that all pg is saying here is that it's better to be open-minded.
Imagine a conversation with someone with "believer in x framework, ex y, z" in their Bio and compare your biases with same user but with a handle anon123.
conjecture - The more things in life people adopt as their identity, the greater the surface area for one to be triggered?
I still find it funny to meet friends who are hardcore football or cricket fans and watch them lose their mind if I said a single not-very-positive word about their favourite teams.
> The more things in life people adopt as their identity, the greater the surface area for one to be triggered?
I find the opposite to be true.
The more things you adopt as part of your identity, the less you're affected when one of those things gets criticized. For example, if you're mostly a gamer, and someone says gaming is stupid, then you're automatically very hurt, since 90% of who you are was just insulted.
However, if gaming is only 10% of what you are, then you're not as affected. The myriad facets of your identity diffuse any incoming attacks. In my opinion, we should be striving to grow our identities, not shrink them.
IMHO I am not convinced that gender identity is actually measurable or a knowable thing. I can physically demonstrate whether I am male or female. I can only assume that I think or feel like other males or females based on how other males or females behave or what they tell me they think and feel. Given the fluidity of language I have no guarantee that my interpretation of that is accurate. I have no real way to do an experiment because I cannot choose to be the other gender for a day and compare. Maybe there are more objective measures but they seem somewhat inadequate to me. My real life experience informs me that there are no real defined boundaries and all of us are some mixture of all of the above.
Paul is more talking about pride and identity. He's not talking about full embodiment or awareness of what identity is.
I'm going to say an example that's not true but it's just to demonstrate a point.
For example if I say "All women are stupid." If you identify as a woman you get offended and emotionally compromised. You assume the person who said it is wrong and you leave.
If you don't identify as a woman and you aren't offended by the statement at all.... perhaps you can do an objective and open minded study to get to the bottom of the question.
An objective person can look at the data and realize that on the bell curve of IQ... men and woman have the same average but men have a thicker tail on the far ends of both sides of the curve. This says that the small population of extremely intelligent people and extremely stupid people are mostly men. By not having pride you can be more objective and see this nuance.
Graham is talking about pride and identity and how it effects your objectivity and bias and intelligent analysis. He is not referring to the actual meaning and definition of identity.
The dark side of lacking identity and being objective is that while I illustrate a rosy conclusion (that is also true) here, not all conclusions are rosy. It is very possible that for certain scenarios the data shows results that are not politically correct. What if the data shows that women are truly stupider? What then?
I went to the gender thing primarily because much of the discussion seemed centered on that. But in general I would say my identity is comprised of many more things other than my gender.
By trying to simplify a definition of identity into something specific or plucking out a single identity trait (any trait) which cannot be defined precisely (emacs vs vim, declarative vs functional, race, intelligence, flavor, color etc) we lose information and end up in never ending ratholes of discussion. People start relying on personal experiences and feelings (subjective info) which makes the discussion personal and more often than not useless.
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?
The fact that your comment is flagged and dead should give you pause. The fact that it doesn't give you pause should give you pause. The fact that you think I am objecting to your specific assertions rather than the mode of assertions should give you pause. Yet, it seems that self-regards of epistemic superiority is the only unstable fuel you need to travel down a lonely road. Good luck.
>The fact that your comment is flagged and dead should give you pause. The fact that it doesn't give you pause should give you pause.
There is no pause. I KNOW the COST of my beliefs. It is a high cost and your reaction and the flag is a small PART of that cost.
I live a life of lies. Externally I believe none of these things and I pretend to be normal just like you. But internally I see darkness everywhere.
Keep in mind, I don't care if my beliefs are implemented to make a better world. I could care less. In fact most of the beliefs I hold, I feel if the world knew the truth it would be worse off for everybody. I'm not really an opponent against any group here.
>"Yet, it seems that self-regards of epistemic superiority is the only unstable fuel you need to travel down a lonely road."
We both know that epistemic superiority is not worth it for any human. You underestimate the sacrifices involved with believing in these things. Nobody makes that choice. I get what your saying but you are disregarding the cost way too much here. A sense of superiority is not reward enough for the price one must pay to believe in these things.
I am what I am because I cannot un-believe what I think is true. I have no choice. Can you not believe 1 + 1 = 2? To me the conclusions are inescapable. But of course it could be that I am biased. Biased people do not know they are biased. Whether or not I am biased, I can assure you that I am not where I am by choice. I am where I am because I have no choice.
>The fact that you think I am objecting to your specific assertions rather than the mode of assertions should give you pause.
This DOES give me pause. Please describe to me in detail what you mean by "Mode."
Valid info. I have not considered it. Economic status and size are factors in female attraction. Asians are generally higher in economic status, statistically speaking, and latin americans are generally poorer and smaller in size so they are more comparable in stature to East Asians. This makes logical sense to what I already know. However it doesn't invalidate the German Sheppard theory. North Americans are generally larger than East Asians and the wealth gap is not as large.
Still all of this is besides the point. Without knowing the latin american thing, my conclusion and theory is valid in terms of the probability of being true. But people dismiss it because of bias, not because of evidence or logic.
Asians have a more positive image in Latin America because the overwhelming impression is that of Bruce Lee machismo, Peruvian Chinese and Japanese Brazilians and not Hollywood casting
I don't think that image beats out the Caucasian white male from the US even within Latin America.
The hierarchy of the racial dating game is still consistent.
Also the situation in the US is not simply false impressions by hollywood casting. Bro, hollywood casting is reactionary to the situation in the states. It's much much deeper than that.
Asian females born in the united states... a huge number of them are Racist against their own race. Many date white people, and many refuse to date asian males. This is much more then some false perception.
Asian Females have very very in depth and realistic perceptions about asian males given the fact they have Fathers and brothers that they grew up with. The choice they make is done NOT because of false perception projected by hollywood or whatever.
You have to get scientific and realistic about this. White people fucking asians easily talk about this behind closed doors, but as an Asian... it's much harder to see reality BECAUSE of IDENTITY.
Yeah, while I would in theory applaud the example of "scientist" that Graham gave, let's not delude ourselves, it's quite vulnerable to exactly this kind of failure mode. Some other examples : scientism, "angry atheism", "rationalism" (mostly for the arrogant and historically opposite meaning for that last one)...
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.
Your ultimate objective should be thriving, ideally for you and as many people and creatures as you can afford to account for. Truth is valuable because since the enlightenment period it has seemed to be extremely valuable in securing thriving.
If you instead are picking Truth and Lack Of Bias over, for example, a rich social life, I’d suggest you are putting the cart before the horse.
I hope you find your place with the right mix of imperfect belongingness and imperfect veracity! Both are important :)
Oh, It's completely too late for me. I cannot unbelieve what I believe.
I already live a life of lies. Nobody knows what I believe and I lie to seem normal and socialize-able. I also don't hold any strong desire to "implement" my beliefs. It's just a perspective.. I am an observer with opinions and I don't care to be any sort of activist.
I largely agree with your last post. However it's too late. I no longer believe what I believe out of choice. I have no choice in what I believe. Once these truths crystallize in your head as truths, they stay that way unless someone can point out any logical flaws. Thinking back it would've been better to not have gone down the path of being cursed with knowledge.
I actually wish to be part of certain religious communities because of the great social benefits that come with being part of said groups. But certain knowledge makes me unable to fully participate because the lie becomes to great.
Imagine praying and worshiping and studying about an entity that I believe is a complete fabrication... just for social benefits. The time sunk into living that lie is too great. So usually I'm part of more moderate groups that mostly avoid these topics. But these groups tend to be more ephemeral.
Humans need a shared lie/belief to bond deeply, and if you lose the ability to lie to yourself it's harder to join these more close knit groups.
However as I grow older, I contemplate more and more whether the lie is worth it. Maybe one day when I'm an old lonely man like I'm 70, I'll live the lie and join one of those religious groups.
>Your ultimate objective should be thriving, ideally for you and as many people and creatures as you can afford to account for.
I want to comment on this part specifically. Because there's a problem here. Being aware that thriving is more important then truth and living by that principle means that you are aware that your concept of what is true is on shaky grounds. You KNOW you made sacrifices to what your truth is in order to thrive. You are aware you are lying to yourself and that defeats the nature of the lie.
To truly thrive in my opinion, you must be unaware and ignorant of these concepts. You must not think about or even be aware about the orthogonality of happiness and knowledge. Just go with the flow. These are the people that are truly happy.
From your post it seems it's a little too late for you as well, you're not as deep as me but you're somewhat down that path. You're aware of the shared lie, you just choose not to think about it too deeply. That's an ok place to be. You might not have contemplated about these topics to deeply and have the "I'm not an expert so I don't know" attitude and it works out. Just know that each step forward down that path is permanent, there is no turning back.
Anyway I brought up this thread, the main purpose was basically to point out that although what graham says is true, giving up your identity for rationality has a High Cost. But this point is lost because my "6 bullet points" (designed with the intent to point out our own biases) was way to visceral. It shows how inescapable bias really is.
I'm actually hoping to meet someone like-minded. Someone who "gets it" on the same level that I do. But that seems less and less likely given the flag.
I believe that the answer you seek is in the article. You're too attached to a sick mindset. It's better to stop overthinking and doing something that have more pleasant effects (for you) than writting long-winded comments here. Or maybe not.
I don't think you read my comment or the article carefully. The extreme end of that article, giving up all your identity is my "sick mindset". That is the ultimate conclusion.
You might as well not comment if you're not going to read anything. I don't care for you comment otherwise. Better for you to start actually thinking and stop mistaking that for "over thinking", because your reply indicates you haven't.
Drop what. Again you didn't read the article. The article isn't about how far you go. It's only about how identity is correlated with stupidity. The more identity you have the stupider you are.
It doesn't talk about taking it to the extreme.
This isn't something you can drop. There are caricature movie characters that are in similar predicaments. If I name them you will understand. Rick Sanchez and Thanos. The term is cursed knowledge. You cannot undo knowledge gained, once you have it, it sticks with you.
Thanos is a villain. The slaughter he conducts is horrifying, yet his logic has a truth that he cannot deny. In the end it's the avengers who delude themselves.
Rick Sanchez would be more similar to where I am. Knowledge of the cold hard truths and apathy towards everything.
That philosophy doesn't mean anything to me. It may define what I feel but in the end it's just a word. Do you read it and suddenly come to the conclusion that eugenics is a valid strategy?
People claim to pragmatic, but true pragmatism involves some horrible stuff. See my 6 points.
I think the good version of this advice is: actively evaluate what is important to you and what you can do to maintain and further it. We are all involved, to one degree or another, in systems and processes larger than ourselves. By definition, our influence on those systems is limited - but we may be able to increase or decrease our influence through work and engagement. It's healthy to reflect on what you are investing your time and energy into and how those investments will impact your life. There is no single right or wrong answer - but you will benefit from forming an opinion!
It's unhealthy to falsely base your self-worth on giant political movements outside your control - but it's equally unhealthy to ignore the impact you experience from the issues of the day. Be reflective in how you associate yourself with things, but no one should pretend that they are not subject to the world (unless, it seems, you're at a "Paul Graham" level of wealth and independence).