Hacker News Reader

Comment by colechristensen | Hacker News Reader

You can notice this in a few fields of popular ideologies these days, that is overcorrecting for a problem to the point of becoming exactly the thing one was originally fighting against.

I am of the somewhat progressive-unpopular opinion that some people have an unhealthy interest in how they label themselves and how others perceive them, and in the attempts to be supportive the popular opinion is doing more harm than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against anyone with a certain genotype or phenotype having any particular interest in whom they love, how they dress, their hobbies, behaviors, etc. as long as they don’t put hurts on other people. I do have doubts about the amount of “identifying” people do with their preferences though. It can be a subtle point that is hard to make just right without getting pitchforks raised, I’m never sure i’ve done it right.

View on HN

> You can notice this in a few fields of popular ideologies these days, that is overcorrecting for a problem to the point of becoming exactly the thing one was originally fighting against.

I've noticed this too, it's not only gender ideology but racial ideology and more. Seems to be form of ideological "pilot-induced oscillation"[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation

"[Pilot-induced oscillation] occurs when the pilot of an aircraft inadvertently commands an often increasing series of corrections in opposite directions, each an attempt to cover the aircraft's reaction to the previous input with an over correction in the opposite direction" (in this case the "pilot" is "society")

And the mechanism of this oscillation is people joining and leaving a movement.

In the beginning the radical idea is a basic kind of equality where some kind of person shouldn't be disadvantaged for some characteristic.

There is then a growth phase where many people join and small specific victories turn into general victories.

There is then a shrinking phase where people leave the movement or lose zeal as general victories are had.

The movement keeps much of its ideology capital and with the more moderate people losing interest, the median ideology moves towards special privileges for hyper-specific characteristics defended by a very real "the problem still exists".

The end stage is a movement that tries to conflate its extreme views as being equally as beyond question and equally morally right as the views during the growth phase, and you get conflict when people have a hard time sorting out the complexities of which is right and which is too far... and you get the backlash where the basic right is threatened by the connection with the extreme views... and so it goes.

The 21st century is the century of complexity, the basic problems are often solved and the complex ones need more nuance than the basic ones took... and the struggle is getting this point across that things aren't as simple as they were before.

Did you get this framework from somewhere you can refer me to? It’s facially intriguing and I’d like to see it more fully explored.

While I probably have many influences, the thoughts there are,I think, mostly my own.

While in tech i’ve been gently exploring the idea of freaking out my thoughts into something publishable.

Sometimes HN is an exercise in attempting to communicate how i think and getting feedback.

Speaking of racial ideology, I honestly don't understand how we're supposed to become less racists if we're drawing so much attention to race and putting it left, right and center of any policy discussion?

Because, honestly, shutting up about it and ignoring it is the solution we tried from the 70s through the 2000s and it didn't accomplish anything - racist folk were just empowered by not being called out on it.

At least when it comes to America - there are some very deeply entrenched societal issues that we'd need to resolve to achieve anything near equality including generations of depriving wealth accumulation in communities (i.e. Native Americans).

Did it really not accomplish anything? Remember that Jim Crow laws officially ended in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act. 44 years later the first black US president was elected.

Is it really fair to say we've come nowhere since the 70s?

No, I think we've made some progress - it's just extremely slow. Don't forget that Fredrick Douglass was a major black political figure during the Civil War and that Sammy Davis Jr. was a sex icon - it doesn't mean that the majority of African Americans (and them too I bet they'd be happy to tell you) didn't suffer heavy racism. There are some good examples of African Americans thriving even in America as it stands today - but that doesn't mean that the playing field is equal, it just means that it's not so biased that it's literally impossible for them to succeed.

It's very difficult to pull individuals out of poverty, much less an entire demographic. Tribes have tried a lot, everything from covering all or part of college, regular per-capita payments, free healthcare, partially or fully subsidized housing, etc. and people waste it by trashing their free housing and blowing money on alcohol and drugs. I find it hard to believe there's a greater obstacle to growing wealth than growing up without any.

I can’t comment on a particular field or ideology per se, but perhaps it’s social media newsfeed algorithms that are creating the similar effect to pilot-induced oscillation that you’re identifying?

Much more likely that it is an emergent property of collective human behavior.

Nonetheless, sophisticated social engineering attempts or clandestine social research are certainly within the realm of discovering by a quick search of the news.

The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions. (I think PG had an essay on HN recently that talked about this - he called out religious and political opinions in particular.)

So their opinions aren't up for discussion. If you disagree with them, they feel offended and personally attacked.

Interfering with the opinion of another is contrary to the principles of human rights.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

Disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't interfering with it.

Marginalizing someone’s identity is interference with a person’s honor, also contrary to the principles of human rights.

What does that have to do with opinions?

In your own words:

> The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions.

When two ethical principles are in conflict, one has to take an even harder look at the formal ethics to either choose between the principles or to synthesize a newer, more informed principle.

Typically something like that ends up in the court of law, but academic philosophy and scientific ethics researchers often contribute meaningful avenues of avoiding the need for the application of justice to redress harms by providing legislatures with more clear ethical principles upon which to build their legal frameworks for justice.

I wasn't specific enough in what I said.

To be sure, I think people's opinions about things (and any sense of identity they have in those opinions) are sacred and inviolate as far as social structure and society are concerned. It's morally and civilly wrong to treat people badly on the basis of their opinions.

I was just pointing out how some people take it so far that one can't even have a thoughtful discussion with them in which one is taking up a contrary position without them feeling offended (and perhaps even angry/combative). Some people even try to shut down contrarians. To such people I'd say: calm down and discuss your point of view civilly. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own without your non-discursive help.

Yea, identity politics may very well end up going down in history as a social engineering failure of the left based in a misunderstanding of ethics and science.

Similar to how the Capitol Riots could be construed as a social engineering failure of conservative political forces.

This is the problem, it goes way too far.

Suddenly we've got people so incapable of existing in an environment where there is gasp some disagreement, that folks go around saying that not being supportive of somebody's opinions and preferences is a violation of human rights.

That isn't explicitly what you are saying, but you are also very much not leaving room for that.

People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist... and at the same time we have lots of people all over the spectrum who really do think only their way of thinking is acceptable and nobody who thinks differently should exist.

It is unacceptable and more pointedly, unsustainable from all sides. You can't have a society survive where people only think one way of thinking can survive.

One of the core foundations of the logical reasoning behind human rights declaration by UN is the following statement

> Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

> People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist

That could very likely be a result of the traumatic oppression that much of the world subsists within.

I agree and I'll add to that activists claiming to speak on behalf of a particular group are often not actually representing that group. I think there is currency in identity these days, to your earlier points, and some wish to spend others' currency for themselves.

Whatever the situation, people in positions of power and authority have a tendency (not absolute) to be in it for the power and authority.

I don't think it's an issue of people being interested in how they label themselves so much as society being interested in labels for people. If you come out as gay, suddenly there are a load of assumptions placed on you about how you speak, dress, act, what your hobbies are, etc. People adopt identities in these cases because society has preconceived notions of the identity, not because the individual themselves has decided that they want to make a big deal out of their identity.

This is a vicious circle. Gays or non-whites are now expected to vote for certain parties (depending on country) etc., and reap bewilderment at the very least if they do not comply with the expectations.

There is, for example, a fairly famous author (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), who is a Somali ex-Muslim, and she says she was having really hard time from the Dutch left when she lived there. Her ideas simply did not fit the preconceived concept of an African immigrant.

Well there are three separate interests

* self labeling

* others labeling you

* how others are labeled

any of the three can become unhealthy when overdone, and different people have different amounts of interest in the three. They each have a set of problems associated with them.

I wouldn't go out of my way to say any one in particular is more of an issue. (i.e. they're all issues in different ways)

You said it. One example I find somewhat relevant is the Boston bombers. They were young people in America, with little connection to their local Muslim community. But, like many young people, they were obsessed with identity. They joked about jihad, they bought a license plate holder that said "terrorista#1" for a friend, etc. They perceived themselves as Muslims (despite not following Muslim practices), had a thirst for identity, and sought out that identity online. When that thirst intensified, it drove them to radical communities, they started following those practices that they were told people of their identity _should_ follow, and it eventually led to tragedy.

How does this story go if they hadn't been obsessed with their identity as Muslims or if they had gone to the local mosque to ask about Islam instead of seeking out radical Muslims online?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com