The problem is not the belief, but that strongly identifying with something can render you blind to (among other things) whether it really is providing for your welfare or not.
(Historical examples abound, but pg's example of someone who died over an argument about two brands of pickup truck is apt. What benefits might be experienced by the belief are outweighed by the evident risks involved in identifying with it so closely.)
This is how persuasion works--appeal to a person's identity and you can convince the mind of almost anything. If your interest lies in thinking as freely as possible, then "keeping your identity small" is a good strategy.
If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course.
Example? I wasn't aware that changing one's mind required any resources.
I think he is confusing beliefs with identity. I think identity requires both the internaliztion of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth. It is easier to establish the commitment for shared, socially approved beliefs that are regularly being reinforced by others - the main reason religion is accepted.
(Historical examples abound, but pg's example of someone who died over an argument about two brands of pickup truck is apt. What benefits might be experienced by the belief are outweighed by the evident risks involved in identifying with it so closely.)
This is how persuasion works--appeal to a person's identity and you can convince the mind of almost anything. If your interest lies in thinking as freely as possible, then "keeping your identity small" is a good strategy.
If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course.
Example? I wasn't aware that changing one's mind required any resources.