Keep Your Identity Small | Hacker News Reader

Keep Your Identity Small

paulgraham.com

234 pointsmqt253 comments

I think I concur that in educated discussions Identity does not help, but I have been thinking through the importance of identity for a while.

I think in many situations identity gives you strength. I have an identity within Y Combinator, with my family, with people that went to my University, in the countries I have lived in etc. These fragments of my identity all give me strength, it means I would help people out that have similar identity to me and I know people in those groups would help me. Beyond aid, it also give me purpose and meaning.

This balance between the good and the part parts of having Identity are important. I don't think one should just try to blindly minimize identity. Maybe just try to keep an open mind in discussions about Identity.

You're right. That's why I was careful to qualify it with "all other things being equal."

In general identity gives you strength while making you stupid. This can sometimes be a good trade, especially in stressful situations. E.g. I think this is one reason people in the US are so much more religious than they were when I was a kid. People who 30 years ago might have been skeptical of preachers are now thinking that religion may at least save their kids from meth.

"identity gives you strength while making you stupid"

Couldn't something similar be said about any emotional response. In that emotional responses give you something but are inherently irrational.

I'd say strong emotion makes you stupid. Emotional responses in general I think are more non-rational than necessarily irrational.

You could also see emotion as heuristic behavior guides that were calculated by evolution. Many decisions are so computationally complex that reasoning isn't useful.

Just for some context, are people much more religious than when you were a kid? I had figured this was a relatively stable number. Or maybe you were referring to how fervent people have become with their religious views?

I'm curious about the actual trend of religiosity, and I'm somewhat skeptical of anecdotal data (for the very reasons in your article). What is the general trend from someone who's been following this longer?

are people much more religious than when you were a kid?

Yes. It was very noticeable when I went back to Pittsburgh recently. When I was a kid, people went to church, but it didn't spill over into everyday life. They did it more as a matter of form. Now people's conversation is filled with religious references. Someone who 30 years ago would have said "we have two children" now says "we've been blessed with two children."

Are they more religious, or are they more open with religion?

Kierkegaard had some interesting views on this very subject, that a belief system such as Christianity requires a greater life involvement than the common 'Sunday Christianity' of 30 years ago. I think now we find a larger number of 'genuine believers' whereas 30 or more years ago people went to Church because that was the thing you do. Now, as people have a greater freedom to NOT go, so the remaining attendees probably become more devoted. A kind of evolutionary process, where the selection method is self-selection of attendance based upon initial belief.

As a rationalist/atheist/whateverlabel of course I'm not sure I'm altogether comfortable with the rapid increase in religious adherence in recent years but that's a different discussion.

Very interesting essay PG!

If you believe the small smattering of polls cited in this Wikipedia article people have actually become less religious over the last 10 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#B...

They moved from 94% believing in God to 73%. Might just be the small sample or differences in questions asked though.

It seems much more likely to be availability bias on pg's part.

It's a complex question. Joe Bageant, author of Deer Hunting With Jesus, can be a good explainer of evangelical religion in America to the rest of us. He asserts that there have always been people who are this deeply religious in about this proportion, but the difference is that now they are a political constituency and a valuable demographic for advertisers. Perhaps it's very simply that culture isn't controlled by the city anymore, nor by the three big TV networks who all had similarly liberal urbanites in control.

If I were to guess I'd say that what's on the decline is nominal religiosity. Those who don't believe, don't worship, in greater numbers. At the same time, among those who do believe, there's been an assertion of cultural power since the 1980s or so.

No data here, just an observation from someone about the same as as pg.

My thoughts exactly pretty much. I also think the atheist movement has become much better organized and more assertive, largely due to the net. The two probably whip each other up into a frenzy as well.

Sometimes I wonder if our perceptions of things are different because we have easier access to information/people or whether things truly are more widespread than before.

For example, are there really as many Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians as it seems, or do they just sound louder because they are broadcasting on more channels?

It is often times the case that people/groups with less power or advantage are louder since they are trying to draw more attention and have less to lose in doing so. But for those not well informed, that loudness translates into legitimacy even though it can indicate exactly the opposite. PETA comes to mind as an example.

Have you read Tom Wolfe's "The 'Me' Decade and the Third Great Awakening"? He seems to think the 70's were particularly religious, although perhaps not in the traditional way. These things definitely seem to go in cycles, though.

http://nymag.com/news/features/45938/

Really? The US has changed a great deal then. Up here in Canada, in my 35ish years I don't really remember a great change in religious belief. In fact, if anything, I find that there is less these days than 30 some odd years ago.

Of course! Kids does not think about death, they did not see it ahead. One probably could discover it after some incident or heavy decease, but usually kids are not aware. Unawareness is the one little secret of their cheerfulness.

In general identity gives you strength while making you stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer in a nutshell.

Indeed, how do you bring up your own kids to have a small identity?

I get the feeling that children growing into adults have an innate need to find identity, and if you have an identity vacuum at home they'll find it elsewhere.

Organized sports.

I subscribe, and if I can I would add: - Multicultural experiences, when I was younger I participated in a Camp with people from various backgrounds (races, income classes, countries) it was really a big experience. - Sharing, I guess in the near future we will be teaching to our children to be humble by giving, those new syndromes they're discovering of spoiled children who just had everything in their lifes and the parents lose control of them. I guess playing with another children also helps, and having strong bonds with relatives of the same age.

I am from a big family and I just see the differences when comparing myself to single sons, but I find the differences interesting, I even admire them.

I also wonder what are the influences of growing up in a family dominated by women. Anyone wants to elaborate?

Great discussion!

Great essay and discussion.

I think there's another variable strongly influencing how "identity" behaves in the wild.

Consider the examples of Nelson Mandela and Ghandi. Both men very strongly identified with the cause of their people, but despite that identity had an amazingly noble approach to their oppressors. Horrible atrocities were committed by their foes, yet they reached out to them with grace - both during their struggles and after their victories. They studied their "enemy's" culture and language extensively and had empathy and compassion for them even while fighting for their cause.

There are many examples of wonderful Lincoln-esque people who strongly identified with a cause, yet had compassion and understanding for the other side. From examining them, it seems that identity was not a factor in causing strife and stupidity when it was coupled with that genuine graciousness and understanding.

Tragically, there seem to be far more examples in history of people taking the other approach - envy, hate, violence, etc. In those instances, identity seems to be the vigorous fan that stokes the flames.

While those may be extreme examples, the same principles apply to today's conversations. For instance, very few people would get into a heated debate with a down-syndrome child over a religious point of doctrine or political policy - no matter how adamant she was about it. Why? Well, it's hard not to have compassion for a mentally-handicapped child who is so innocent in her understanding. Yet when people come across a 35 year old man with the same view (who incidentally may be just as 'innocent' in his understanding) - it's much easier to throw away that compassion and understanding and attack him personally with vitriol.

If someone has genuine love and concern for another person it's hard to imagine the kind of stupid debates and spiraling into dumbness that pg describes - even if the participants are at polar ends of the religious/political identity scales. Some of you may remember what ParticleTree did to effectively reduce trolls and flamers: http://credibility.stanford.edu/captology/notebook/archives.... By giving commenters a reminder of compassion, they took a lot of heat out of identity-stupidity.

Lincoln, Ghandi, Mandela etc understood this principle and used it for great good. It reminds me of a great quote from one of my favorite sci-fi novels that shows Charity not as a flaccid quality - but like this:

"And now it came. It was fiery, sharp, bright, and ruthless, ready to kill, ready to die, outspeeding light; it was Charity, not as mortals imagine it, not even as it has been humanised for them since the Incarnation of the Word, but the trans-lunary virtue, fallen upon them direct from the Third Heaven, unmitigated. They were blinded, scorched. They thought it would burn their bones. They could not bear that it should continue. They could not bear that it should cease." - That Hideous Strength, CS Lewis

I've know highly religious/political people who were extremely dedicated to their views, yet seemed to get along with just about everyone even while having lively debate that even decreased dumbness! Unfortunately, we've also seen much of the opposite. The main key always seems to be whether the person has genuine love and compassion for the others holding opposing views - so much so that the others know that disagreement doesn't threaten the relationship. It's a rare and wonderful quality we can all strive for.

In a nutshell - have all the identity you want - just make sure you couple it with the Golden Rule (thankfully found in just about every belief system, religious or not, yay!).

Mandela founded the ANC's armed wing (Umkhonto we Sizwe). This armed wing was responsible for its fair share of atrocities such as:

- Planting landmines that killed people indiscriminately in rural areas

- Torture and executions esp. in foreign camps

- Burning people that worked with the apartheid government alive (necklacing). Mandela's wife killed a 14 year old boy without spending a day in jail (Stompie Sipei)

- Church Street bombing and Magoo's bar bombing (which killed civilians). Bombing of an Amamzimtoti shopping center (which killed two children and a woman).

- Factional fighting with the IFP in the late 80ies and early 90ies (which killed more than 15,000 people).

What happened in South Africa was amazing - but it was not just Mandela that made a great leap. White people gave up all power that they had - military, political, just on the basis of a constitution. This knowing full well that there were no other successful democratic African country.

This brings this post to a familiar ground - we do not want to be discussing politics on YCNews. So if you want to use a person as a hero, use Archbishop Desmond Tutu who advocated for non-violence from the start.

Yes, Mandela is a great example of someone who was able to change his ways from hate and violence to understanding and compassion. If he can do it, I guess there is hope for online flamers and trolls ;)

The saying goes: one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. I made this account especially because I knew I will be regarded as a “troll” by some.

The real world is unfortunately not entirely black and white. I never said that what Mandela fought for was wrong - I said that the way it was done was wrong. Unfortunately most people spend time on the Apartheid era's misdeeds but ignore that of the liberation movement.

I said he should use Desmond Tutu as a fine example. Tutu fought for the same thing as Mandala (equal rights) but he did it in a non-violent way. He denounced violence and terrorism on both sides (he even intervened once risking his own life to prevent a crowd from necklacing a person).

You will also notice above that I recommended moving off from the politics topic because it is unnecessarily divisive and not really the focus point of YCNews.

EDIT: Why I also think that Tutu makes an excellent example is that his actions (such as the non-violence he promotes) stems from his religious identity. This is clearly the case in which a person's identity is a good attribute.

Great - then use Tutu for the example. Just be careful that you don't go through life missing the point in discussions by getting caught up nit-picking the examples people use.

thinking that religion may at least save their kids from meth.

That was put to music recently in a country western hit, "Drugs or Jesus".

Paul's essays are quite objective and plain scientific analysis of things with no subjective emotions attached.They are quite brilliant in that sense. But still life is not governed by plain facts. Emotions are also important and emotions are what differentiate living from non-living.Sense of identity is governed by emotions. But still as I think in some more depth, even emotions appear to be manifestation of the fact that our genes are engineered to sustain itself and propagate. And since in the presence of a given complex external stimuli, it is difficult to take decisions with in the constraint of limited processing ability of the brain, emotions help in coming with some decision. And this decision may or may not be correct. Emotions can be thought of as the memorization of some decisions for some patterns of external stimuli.So finally everything seems to be quite deterministic with cause and effect relationships.So I am just perturbed and want to know whether there is a free will? And as I understand about probability, it just quantifies how much we don't know ( bit amusing in the sense that we quantify something which we don't know...and that is done using statistics which again makes it somewhat deterministic ).

Keeping your identity small is great advice, but it is actually biased advice.

If you keep your identity small you are not going to be associating with any large group holding common beliefs, which would argue against associating with 'a political party', 'a religion' and so on. This is not a binary issues, everybody 'identifies' with some group more or less than with others. For instance, I had no part in the Romans occupying NL because it happened 2,000 years before I was born, but in spite of that I sympathize with any people that it did happen to. Possibly people from present day 'rome' would see this differently. Arguably the whole Yugoslavian war was exactly because people remembered too well what side of a battle they were on long ago. I don't readily identify as a perl or a python programmer but I do have a stronger leaning towards python because I feel that that is a cleaner language, and easier on the eyes so in an argument about pers vs python I'm probably biased for python, even though I may try to be as objective as possible.

That said, I do agree with the whole argument that whenever peoples' identity is involved in a discussion you run the risk of degradation of the conversation. But that's really up; to both parties, their mutual respect and the way the conversation is conducted. It doesn't HAVE to degenerate, even if identities are involved. The discussion can still be civil and you can agree to disagree on the basics of your belief systems and still come out ahead on both sides of the dividing line.

I guess sitting on the 'kill' button of this site comes with some responsibility and I see this piece mostly as a justification of executing the policy, even if the discussion is civil to avoid future degeneration and the 'slippery slope' of if you allowed 'that' then you should allow 'this'.

I think to some extent you are confusing sympathy or agreement with identity. I think identity requires both the internaliztion of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth.

To complicate things: What if I have a kid. Then being a father becomes part of my identity. Perhaps I might even think that people should have kids. If someone suggests that all children should be killed, or that debt should be added to the State I live in that presumably my children would have to pay off, I might react to these statements with more than disinterest and perhaps even with anger, since they conflict with my identity as a father.

'Open mindedness' may be a help navigating some problems regarding differing identities, but certainly not all.

Its posts like this and Paul's "How to Disagree" that remind me of an idea that I keep coming back to again and again.

I've often wondered what would be possible in terms of designing a website that aims to moderate debate in a way that leads to new ideas and conclusions and attempts to negate as many of these types of effects as possible.

Some formal system, that the users would have no choice but to follow, that begins with some one making a statement such as "X is true because of Y and Z" and then everyone debates it, reforms the statement as necessary and at some point it gets locked in as either true or false and then the discussion has to proceed based on that understanding.

People are forced to address each others points and eliminate as much bias as possible in their statements.

You could visually map out the progress that gets made until perhaps some new interesting conclusion gets reached.

Obviously no perfect solution exists but for me its an interesting question of how useful a system could be designed. There's also the obvious problems that a) few people are likely to want to use such a system and b) those that do are probably skewed to favor some particular point of view.

There is just so much wasted energy on the internet not being harnessed for actual progress. There are many blogs etc that have been created with the specific purpose of progressing some cause or area of expertise but people are just turning up, yelling opinions at one another and leaving with very little gained. Such is life I guess...

Sounds like Wikipedia. :)

Well yes, except that wikipedia doesn't lead to new and interesting conclusions as far as I'm aware. It does a good job of converging on good truthiness for a lot of things but avoids the harder stuff for which these types of problems make impossible to deal with.

I've considered the idea too. Perhaps a Wikipedia based on prolog. The main problem is that the expert system would be too tedious for most to fill out. There needs to be some kind of happy medium between rigor and usability. That middle point hasn't occurred to me yet.

Perhaps just some kind of reference system, so when an old debate reemerges, people can just refer to the online record until new ground is broken. The problem in this case is succinct yet meaningful summaries of the debate.

I keep thinking something useful could be achieved without getting too formal or needing something as strict and complex as Prolog.

Looking at how well a site like Stack Overflow is working gives me hope of a happy medium between rigor and usability being possible in the future somehow.

It combines a whole bunch of ideas from social sites such as voting, points, awards, wiki style editing into an effective solution. Far from perfect but useful which as about all you could ask for I guess.

It would also be interesting if a company like Disqus started experimenting with features in this area.

To go into a bit more detail of this likely pipe dream...

One approach could be to have a group of site moderators who make it their mission to, as Paul said, keep their identities as small as possible and simply judge the logic and biases of peoples arguments.

Perhaps their vote is what locks in a statement to be taken as true or false and then everyone has to then play by the rule of accepting their judgment on the matter for future debates.

In a similar way that scientific research builds on the work that was done before it to make progress, standing on the shoulders of giants type stuff, the conversation could be mapped to show these towers of progress grow as people logically move from "if A is true then B must be true..." and so on.

Perhaps the debate branches at points of contention and goes off down different paths.

The idea being that anyone can join in and quickly get up to speed as to where the conversation is up to by looking at the map of statements that have been dealt with so far.

If someone wants to reopen the debate around some statement and attack the foundation of one of these towers and bring it crashing down then they can.

Of course an enormous element of this will be based on the subjective judgment of the moderators. It can't be entirely based on pure logic but if it is useful and leads to new and interesting things then who cares...

Even if it succeeded in removing a lot of the crap around a debate and focus precisely on the points that people differ on so they can be attacked directly I think that would be a useful thing.

My idea for making this somewhat enjoyable and stand a chance of people participating in it would be to make it game like in some way.

Anyway, its all pretty out there stuff I know, but I'll no doubt continue to think about anyway...

It's not a pipe dream. There are some folks out there working on this kind of stuff, and I prototyped one for my master's project. However, I didn't go the route of having propositional-level granularity, because I'm aiming for Wikipedia levels of participation, and it's understood in HCI that the more structure you impose on input at the interface level, the lower the adoption.

Some stuff you may want to look up (all but the first are actually online):

  MIT's Collaboratorium (should be an article in Sloan)
  DebateGraph
  TruthMapping
  DebateWise
  Debatepedia

There are also a bunch of other more commercial attempts whose names I can't recall. ReadWriteWeb or a similar site did a roundup of them last year. But they suck. Even the listed examples have probems insofar as they screw up the interface, interaction design, and/or information architecture. (That is, if the goal is to achieve widespread use.) Within small, interested communities, there may be sufficient motivation to use them. In Collaboratorium's case, they had a class at MIT use it w/r/t climate change.

If you're really interested in tackling this problem, let me know. I'm too busy working on a for-profit venture to keep developing my MS project, but my design doc might give you some ideas, even if you don't go the route I did.

I'm interested in your design doc and future discussion on this topic.

A technical note about his note [1]. pg says, When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical, but he probably means "like a core going supercritical", which is when a chain reaction goes on at an increasing rate (i.e. what you need for a nuclear explosion). Critical is an equilibrium (i.e the self-sustaining condition, as used for power generation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

More important than technical accuracy, I knew what he meant.

Hmm. I could change it. But are you sure it wouldn't be hypercorrect to phrase it that way? Isn't going critical a kind of shorthand for going supercritical, because in practice any situation that produces the first is going to produce the second?

Edit: Actually I think criticality is the right metaphor. It's a change in state from what preceded it. That's the important part, not the resulting explosion. (Arguably there are in fact analogs to control rods in online discussions-- nesting depth, the fact that people get tired after a while, etc.)

Reaching criticality is a normal goal for the operators of a controlled nuclear reactor (nuclear power reactor unit; research reactor; etc.). A reactor that has reached criticality is usually one that is operating normally. For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22initial+criticality%22

The JRR-4, which reached initial criticality in 1965, had contenued to aperate safely until 1996 using uranium of a high concentration of 93% [...]

Unit 1 reached initial criticality on March 8, 1988 and went into commercial operation on August 25. Unit 2 reached initial criticality on March 12, ...

Sure, and the result of that "normality" is furiously boiling water.

If you're aiming to make tea, then that might be the goal, yes.

the result of [core criticality] is furiously boiling water.

Not in a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor If a nuclear reactor's core is not critical, that nuclear reactor is not on.

Preface: one thing I like about PG's essays is that even though I often strongly disagree with his position, they really make me think, and force me to clarify my own position in my mind.

The essay said, "people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity".

Hmmm. I don't think that's correct at all. For example, I have a great marriage, and my wife's a big part of my identity, but we've had many fruitful discussions about marriage and related issues. Being a Christian is also a big part of who I am, but that doesn't stop me having fruitful discussions about it (admittedly usually not online). If it's with an atheist or agnostic, sometimes I'm sharpened, and sometimes they're challenged.

There's a big difference between being blinkered, and having strong but clearly-argued positions that weave in and out of your identity.

Husbands and wives are a special case. They know they can't afford to let a disagreement get out of control. You may be able to talk about controversial topics in a situation like that, where some kind of external force keeps the participants civil.

I think husbands and wives are a special case only in that they are almost always significantly motivated to preserve their relationship. And that is the key to avoiding the useless discussion problems PG saw. When it is important to preserve relationship with someone else (even only met in an on-line forum) then a discussion won't degrade into a "religious war".

Ironically for the context, this view has crystalized for me from religious teaching.

PGs thesis seems to boil down to this: If you believe in something strongly enough, it will cause you to want to defend it and you may compromise your rationality and civility as a result. For which reason we should believe in as little as possible and be as non-committal in our beliefs.

I'm not sure that this is an ethically tenable position: shallowness extolled as a virtue. It's true, people who don't believe in anything don't argue about religion and politics, they fight over fashion and celebrities. I'd prefer people to have strong, well-formed opinions that they are ready to defend, even against me, to people with no opinion at all.

You can believe in or participate in something without having it form a significant part of your identity. Usually we say something like that is a "preference" or "opinion", but the difference in name is only a an indicator that it is less coupled to our identity than that it is a distinctly different kind of thing.

It's true, people who don't believe in anything don't argue about religion and politics, they fight over fashion and celebrities.

This is an excessive generalization, and a false dichotomy. The people who argue over fashion or celebrity are those who have incorporated it into their identity. Those subjects are distinct from religion in politics by a matter of degree, not category.

A typical person responds very differently to having their religion criticized than they do having their favorite flavor of ice cream criticized, even though objectively speaking they are both just preferences among a wide number of choices. It isn't even necessarily true that they've given more thought to the former than the latter, only that they identify with that preference much more closely--and criticism of it feels that much more like criticism of the individual.

No, that wasn't what I was saying. There is a difference between having strong opinions and considering something part of your identity. You can discard an opinion if you get sufficient evidence to the contrary. It's harder to discard your identity.

Moreover, identifying as something doesn't necessarily take the form of having any specific opinions. E.g. identifying as southern (in the US) may cause you to have certain opinions, but it doesn't consist of having them. Someone who wasn't southern but happened to have the same opinions wouldn't thereby identify as southern.

I believe that if you hold certain opinions, strongly enough, they change who you are. If you truly believe in the value of altruism (for example) you can't help but become more altruistic. If you don't let your opinions change who you are, it's a fair question to ask, whether you even hold those opinions.

Granted, I understand that you are more concerned with making sure people keep a certain emotional distance from their opinions, so that they can maintain a level of objectivity, but I'm not sure that that is always feasible, without adopting a certain kind of passivity or relativism.

I can't tell if this advice is intended for technical matters or a general sense. In real life, a person is going to have a lot of real identities (that can be actively ignored by that person, but not so easily dispensed with.) The same person might be a father, an accountant, a divorcee, an alcoholic, a cancer-survivor, a member of an ethnic group, a 45-year-old, etc, etc, and all of these will inevitably effect that person's mental state and behavior.

A relative of mine voted for BHO because she thought he would be "good for teachers". Lots of people think this way. A friend of mine loved a previous governor because he was "good for divorced fathers". Public policy is a huge subject, but people will throw away every consideration for a specific connection. People who don't play this game (or play it badly [1]) become the victims, rather than the benefactors, of a massive bureaucracy.

The advice is, in fact, really bad advice (if intended generally). It amounts to: Don't stick up for yourself.

[1] The two examples I mentioned were playing it very badly, for instance.

A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way an evangelical Christian is committed to rejecting it.

I disagree, I'm an evangelical Christian and I don't reject it.

Yeah, that statement bothered me to. People seeming to assume that just because a vocal minority of a group believe something, that all members of the group believe the same thing. This especially includes people who's expressed ideology hopes to avoid prejudice and bigotry. Thought I don't think PG, really thinks all Evangelicals are YECs. at least I hope he doesn't.

My mistake. I changed it to "a biblical literalist."

Thanks so much paul, I really appreciate that.

My mistake. I changed it to "a biblical literalist."

Whether it was intentional or not, your [2] paragraph there seems to reveal part of your own identity with the scientific community, primarily because of the way it was phrased. It reads as if the scientist is completely and entirely committed to the rational, while cleverly mentioning that those identifying with religion clearly toss the evidence out of the window.

Of course the literalist does this because his world-view does not permit it, but this sophistry ignores the larger picture that both the scientist and the literalist hold equally irrational worldviews -- one in scientific naturalism and one in the Bible + scientific empiricism.

Both world-views are far from grounded in complete rationality and both world-views function on powerful assumptions that hardly qualify either individual as completely rational, a distinct difference from how your paragraph depicts the two individuals. I think robg states it best here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=396215

Of course, I am a Christian and have my passionate identity tied to this discussion, but it was interesting how you chose to portray the scientist as rational and the religious believer as irrational. Was that intentional, or was it a little bit of personal identity peeking through in your writing?

This is not my attempt to "read into" your writing, but given this context of personal identity (which we know both consciously and subconsciously shapes everything we do), I was interested to know if your writing here was shaped by your own identity. I'm pretty confident it was, given that you're definitely not trying to deceive anyone here, but you are certainly providing a slanted view on reality.

> It reads as if the scientist is completely and entirely committed to the rational, while cleverly mentioning that those identifying with religion clearly toss the evidence out of the window.

I believe the scientific community is defined by complete commitment to the rational. Sure, there are people who claim to be scientists, but the scientific method is an exercise in pure rationality.

As well, generally speaking, ultra-religious people tend to discount evidence that contradicts their faith.

In contrast, ultra-scientific people accept new evidence that contradicts their previously-held beliefs. They update the model and move on.

I'm sure there are examples to the contrary and I do see a "No true Scotsman" fallacy looming on the horizon of this line of argument.

I believe the scientific community is defined by complete commitment to the rational. Sure, there are people who claim to be scientists, but the scientific method is an exercise in pure rationality.

You would do best to rephrase that statement in far less concrete terms, because scientists (more specifically -- "scientists" trying to answer "why" and "how" our existence came about) are hardly playing in the arena of complete and total rationality.

As I linked before, scientists far smarter than myself have noted that the rational scientific method used in empirical observation oversteps its rational boundaries when it attempts to answer existential questions -- those are the only real questions that are even disputed between religion and science. No intelligent religious person questions the complete rationality of empirical observation and the scientific method behind that, so the only domain were talking about here is that which is under dispute.

In this domain of dispute between religion and science, where it's pretty evident both world-views are in fact NOT completely rational (i.e. conjecturing about the unobservable and unmeasurable), it would only be fair to say that neither the scientist or religious believer has a completely rational answer that explains their own existence. This is a distinct difference from how the scientist and religious believer are subjectively viewed as concretely rational vs. irrational, when it is crystal clear that is not the true big picture of the differing world-views.

Nevertheless, the major problem here is that these questions of existence are answered in the name of Science. The common person understands science to be the authority on all things rational, because they've seen it in practical use on all things empirical. The only problem is that most fail to realize that the scientific method only has true rational authority in the domain of the empirical. Can't you see the inherent problem here? Science has no more authority in answering existential questions than any other world-view, because all of science's rational authority comes from the empirical, where things can be measured, observed, modified, etc.

In the realm of unmeasurable and unobservable, I agree that the empirical method is impotent, and science can only conject, in a manner similar to religion.

The other thing is that believing in natural selection is quite different from saying "man evolved from monkeys".

Also, it's possible to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that he created it 10,000 years ago but 14 billion years old. Similar to believing he created Adam and Eve after 6 days, but 20-or-so years old.

...does it even matter? If you're a Christian, your faith lies in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the creation of the world 10,000 years ago. Frankly, it should be a non-issue.

But we should stop here because news.yc isn't the place to be discussing religion.

One trouble with following this line of reasoning to its limits is simply that one doesn't have an endless supply of mental energy. It is not merely easier to mark something about yourself as known and solid, and move on; it also frees cycles for other things. One simply can't go about life questioning every action in terms of its relationship to values which you are supposed to figure out. It's too hard.

So, perhaps it might be best to say "keep your identity as small as possible, but no smaller."

I don't see how it consumes mental energy to be less judgmental and make fewer identifications. If anything, the opposite is the case. Carrying a heavy identity takes a lot of energy: you have to defend yourself against anyone criticizing any piece of it.

As for "following this line of reasoning to its limits", there are very few people who have. I came to the conclusion it was better not to try, as such; you're most likely to end up in self-deception if you do.

Well, certainly in the case of the devout religious, there is a firm set of rules and values to which one is supposed to adhere. It may demand effort from you, but not so much of introspection and self-examination, which is often frightening and tiring. And to avoid identification resists the following of role models, to a large extent one must walk their paths alone. Lastly, one is then impeded in finding those of like mind and affinity. We meet here not at Hacking News, but Hacker News, presumed by and for Hackers.

In the case of religion and politics, it seems more difficult to maintain a lack of strongly-held opinion, as attempting to do so puts you at odds with most people who have one. Inevitably, someone will try to argue that your faithlessness or lack of political conviction is itself a faith or conviction, and it may very well become one if you get pulled into that.

Meanwhile, the even the most free-thinking of the faithful in anything come equipped with dogma, which requires little mental energy to invoke. This partially explains why arguments tend to be the same over and over again--they've been reduced to dogma vs. dogma.

The only thing I feel I can truly lock down is this : I don't know. Nothing can truly be trusted from whether there is any "me" to survive death all the way down to the accuracy of memory and the individual perceptions of my senses. Some more fundamental assumptions are more solid than others - such as the assumption that what I perceive through my senses reflects an objective reality that you also perceive through your senses. I only want to lock down a particular assumption in the context of solving a particular problem and only so far as empirical evidence supports. I want to mark down the appropriate set of assumptions (with perhaps a common base that is "identity") as known and solid then attempt to solve my problem and move on or revisit assumptions as required. So, my actions and values are in a constant state of doubt and while certain of my base beliefs seem very solid now - so did rejected beliefs of yesterday. This is my only core belief, that it is best to keep an empty mind, a mind free of preconceptions making minimal operational assumptions based only on empirical evidence (as time allows). I tend to think identification is overcompensation - people really NEED their religion to be correct because of the fear of the great unknown, death.

"I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity"

This essay doesn't touch on what it actually means for an idea to become part of someone's identity. I think I have a rough notion of what was intended, but understanding how it works better would be more enlightening.

The essay also attempts to separate science from things like politics and religion. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Lots of things that masqueraded as science, medicine, and rationality in the past look ridiculous to us now. In fact, history should tell us that any system of thought that looks so obviously right probably has big blind spots.

To use the example in the essay, the label "scientist" might not help you in negotiations or politics. There, you have to understand what the opposition wants in order to get things done. Identifying yourself as a scientist doesn't prevent empathy, but it can if you use that system of thought when you shouldn't.

I think we can also observe that the topics people weakly identify with are common topics for small talk e.g. weather, movies, pets etc.

Family is also a common subject of small talk ("How is your wife doing?"), which is identity-plus-plus for most people, and the mating habits of snails are topics most people weakly identify with but not commonly used for small talk, so I'm guessing that relationship is a little less persuasive than it seems to be at first brush.

I think what he meant by "weakly identify with" was that people have opinions about these things but aren't hardcore about them. People will identify with the movies they like, what kind of pets they prefer, etc. On the other hand, I feel like very few identify with snail mating at all.

(As a side note, snail mating is actual fairly cool-looking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxejE8HB9lY . I actually like this one of slugs a bit more, skip in to about 2:30 for the good stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSW9kWIRCOQ )

We avoid confrontation on identity-plus-plus topics. Try starting a conversation with, "So your wife's kinda a bitch, eh?"

Right, but the thesis is that it is unsafe to even mention identity because it invites catastrophic conversational degradation. The observed ability to talk about family without someone saying uncharitable things about your wife cuts against the thesis.

Both participants need to identify strongly. If two guys strongly identify over the same woman there will be trouble with any talk about her. People fight over sporting teams, but you can ask a fan about the season without conflict if you don't identify with the sport.

The real issue is whether the identities conflict. It doesn't hurt my marriage to know that your marriage is great. Meanwhile, knowing someone is a proud follower of the One True Way threatens your identity as a member of the One True-Er Way.

Though if you both happen to be members of the same True Way, starting a conversation about religion and politics can be incredibly beneficial. I know seeing a bunch of Ayn Rand books on a friend's shelf boosted our relationship immensely.

Perhaps all that saves these kinds of conversations from spiraling into "religious wars" is peoples' recognition that these things are arbitrary and ridiculous to get upset about.

For instance, I am a dog person and my girlfriend is a cat person. Occasionally, we start to debate the relative merits of each. And there may in fact be one which is in general "better"; after all, most people would agree that dog ownership is better than man-eating tiger ownership. But since we both recognize that dog and cat ownership is a rather silly thing to get upset about, we don't.

On the other hand, politics (for example) are considered to be important. And while we may realize that it's nearly impossible to find a "right answer", that our discussion will likely lead to nothing, etc., we don't feel silly getting upset about it. That, combined with our identity-based connection with politics, leads to flared tempers and out-of-control discussions.

As an extension to what you are saying. Politics and Religion are, in fact, important. Whether or not we give millions to this are that cause, whether there is some kind of afterlife, these are important questions and so people should get involved in them. I think that there is something wrong with people who choose not to. This is not to say that people should be rude or irrational about these topics, but that they should put the thought into them so that they can discuss them rationally, and act on their conclusions in a productive fashion.

That said, I think that HN is generally the wrong place to have these debates. These topics, when treated fairly, require a lot of space and time to flesh out fully, and a tech news forum isn't properly equipped to do that. In addition, they distract from the valuable discussion for which this place is good.

"Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs."

No, every opinion is not equally valid - there is a range of probabilities into which opinions can be classified. The more improbable the belief, the less valid it is. One doesn't have to prove that a theory is 100% wrong, merely that on the scale of probability it scores poorly against a rival theory.

For example, I may believe the earth is 4,000 years old but it is a demonstrably false opinion. It doesn't matter how sincerely I believe this or that a quarter of the planet's humans believe that. Similarly, there is one good explanation for how and when life originated on earth, and all the other "competing" opinions are highly improbable.

One of religion's goals is to explain the world, but science does a much better job, and yet people's religious beliefs are expected to be respected, even if they are stupid and childish (which they are most of the time). Another goal of religion is to set a standard for morals, and yet holy books are full of despicable, horrendously grotesque, anti-human "morals".

I think that one of the reasons people have a hard time admitting their religions and religious beliefs are fantasies is that they have been indoctrinated since childhood that faith is a virtue, to not ask WHY. Some of this appears to have its origin in natural selection, because children who believe at face value what their parents tell them are more likely to survive.

You can't argue against religion with logic or facts, if that were possible religion would have died a long time ago.

As far as everyone is concerned, all opinions pretty much are equally valid, whether they actually are or not doesn't seem to matter.

I think it's more like: As far as everyone is concerned, their own opinions are more correct than everyone else's. Which is what leads to debate, argument, etc. If everyone believed opinions were all equally valid, they'd just live and let live. There'd be no reason for conflict.

Edit: There's something incongruent about trying to discuss an opinion of how the validity of opinions is determined... Hmm...

One can argue against (a) religion with logic and facts.

With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)

With facts: for example geological/fossil evidence can be used to argue against creationism. (The best one can do in trying to put forward 'facts' is to put forward what is well supported by the available evidence, and better supported than known alternatives. So, here for example, one would also have to try and find fault with whatever evidence can be brought forward in support of creationism.)

Whether or not those on each side of a debate will give due dispassionate consideration to the other sides' arguments, is another matter, however. Presumably, what you meant was that one can't argue successfully against religion with logic or facts.

With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)

I've always found it a bad idea to pretend to be an expert in someone else's religion. Pointing out contradictions in someone else's religion 99.9% of the time is just going to make you sound very ignorant as to how people interpret the things that you find at first glance contradictory.

Christianity has had 2,000 years to iron out the obvious contradictions. I am pretty sure that the more mature faiths are consistent if you accept their axioms.

I doubt you can think of anything that Augustine and Aquinas didn't. The dudes had nothing else to do but think.

Obviously I meant successfully, that was clearly implied by the second half of the sentence.

I think pg is entirely missing the point: it isn't about identity. It is about [exercising] power, and its subjects. Identity, like technology (mentioned javascript) is just a tool for it.

He might like http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2733964 (it is available in several languages) -- it explains the obvious: religious wars are in fact not about religion, neither identity. To most, even believing people, it does not matter for the faith, if the body and blood are actually present in the Eucharist or not. This is more of a pretext, an artificially created differentiation [marketing, PR if you like] to create identity, to exhibit disagreement [over other issues]. In the end, it is nothing more than struggle over control/power/resources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Revolt

pg is not missing the point.

Protecting the identity is an act of securing one's control, and hence, power, and sense of survival fitness. Furthermore, groups sharing common identity strengthen the feeling of kinship, and hence again, stronger control. This is an evolutionary psychology interpretation (in which this topic has been discussed to great depths).

Notice that below a puberty it's much harder to find polarized arguments like the "wars" we talk about. One may argue that mental development is one reason, but another factor, closely related to development, is that at this age the brain is still highly malleable, and the identity is weak. A kid could argue vehemently about a particular idea (note this is different from preference, as in food). It is entirely plausible that if you get their parents and friends to influence them you could turn the entire idea around in a short time.

Not so with adults. They'd simply leave the premises and find people who agree.

That isn't to say you are wrong -- but that what you seem to think is an entirely different idea from what pg wrote is actually quite similar.

I think pg's topic was more inspired by observing online discussions rather than actual religious wars.

That said, your observations are not contradictory. If clashes and intolerance arise naturally because of self-identification with religious positions, how much more convenient for a aggressive ruler to exploit that as a pretext for war. The same has been done for nationalism, for at least a few centuries.

"One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs."

Mentioning this view should always, I think, be accompanied by a disclaimer. As Michael Rooney wrote: "The error here is similar to one I see all the time in beginning philosophy students: when confronted with reasons to be skeptics, they instead become relativists. That is, where the rational conclusion is to suspend judgment about an issue, all too many people instead conclude that any judgment is as plausible as any other." http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/04/knowing_about_b.html#c...

When evidence is weak or conflicting, there's still a particular correct state of uncertainty you should be in as a result. So even those who (incorrectly) assert that agnosticism is the correct response to religious teapots are still asserting the atheists and theists to be wrong.

It's interesting that an essay about how to avoid religious arguments should center around a timeless spiritual principle. (I wouldn't say it's ironic, though; what's ironic is how people turn religions into their opposites and still call them the same thing.) This principle (of non-identification) is also very practical. It's amazing to me how often suffering comes from saying "I am X", therefore "I am negated if X is negated". The converse is also true: it's amazing how much more freely one can live when one doesn't do that.

Until I moved to San Francisco ten years ago my identity was wrapped up in my home region of my home state. SF was where I finally let it go. I can perfectly remember the moment I realized I could. How exhilarating that was! And it started a landslide. I'll bet I don't have 10% the identity I did back then.

(It helped that I had long before figured out that when people speak of "X pride" or "Proud to be X", it means that X sucks. Say this without laughing: "Proud to be a physicist at Lawrence Livermore". Then try googling "Harvard pride". Hmm, I didn't even know there was a Harvard, Illinois.)

This is such a ridiculously brilliant essay. How in the hell does Paul keep doing this? I've been living this exact strategy for years and even advising people to do it too. Yet for me it remained a jumble of half-considered thoughts. (Please don't tell me I should reconsider having "smart guy" within my identity.) Another triumph, Paul. Thank you.

> This is such a ridiculously brilliant essay.

Um.. I think that's going a bit far. Interesting take on well known fact that people who identify heavily with something aren't very rational about being challenged on it, but "ridiculously brilliant", I think not.

Interesting take on well known fact that people who identify heavily with something aren't very rational about being challenged on it

A few others on the same topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Fut...

http://www.google.com/search?q=eysenck+psychology+of+politic...

He started with "Why do political and religious discussions suck?" and ended up with a recipe to make oneself smarter.

I wonder how many tens of millions of people have wondered that exact thing and ended up with "Well, some topics are just inherently controversial"?

Sorry, it just wasn't really particularly insightful. Buddhists have been teaching detachment for thousands of years, slow and methodical destruction of the ego until you become totally an observer, purely aware.

You are not your car, you are not your job, you are not your religion, etc, etc, this is not anything new, and while it is wise, it's certainly not some stunningly brilliant new idea from Paul.

I'm not knocking Paul either, I very much like his writing, some of his essays are fantastic, but c'mon, this isn't that great. The word fanboy'ism springs to mind.

this is a discussion of identity politics. it's old hat. seriously, the hat is in its forties. there are entire disciplines in academia devoted to questions about the function of identity in contemporary american society. that said, it's well-written and provocative. what is actually smart here is not the old-ass idea, it is the application of that idea to a question/problem that regular readers of the internet forums commonly have. for that, this is commendable. i never would have thought i would have found a discussion of identity here and i am impressed by this community's genuine interest.

I don't know about religion, but I think you are righter than you might guess about politics. Most political discussions ultimately devolve into an argument between collectivists and individualists. If you think about it, most of the individualists have direct access to some sort of resources, such as land, capital, intelligence, or whatever, that aren't possessed by the collectivists. In other words, they are privileged, either by custom (law), biology, or just plain circumstance. The collectivists have no such luck. They have nothing to work with directly. They consequently have no choice but to work indirectly. That is, they HAVE to work collectively, for the supposed good of everybody. The option of working directly with resources, without paying some sort of toll, or exclusively for one's own good, isn't there. No amount of logic or talk can change this situation. BTW, I should make it clear here that I'm not downing collectivists. You'd be a fool not to run with what you were given. What needs to be changed is how resources are allocated, not the rational behavior of people who are stuck with a particular allocation. Some of this (such as land distribution) could possibly be addressed culturally. Some, however, such as differences in intelligence, cannot be. In any event for all practical purposes the person's political stand might as well be an indelible part of their identity.

"To question history, to correct it, you need people who are not anyone's children." Anand, Indian Writer.

Oddly, this same thought has been on my mind for quite a few weeks now. To move forward, especially to look back at history and learn from it, we can't be anyone's children, however uninstinctive and bastardly it sounds.

Because if we are going to become someones lineage, rationally we should go back to that incestous tribe somewhere in southern Africa. And all of us too. It is undoubtedly our partial knowledge and living with the legacy of the few generations before us that many a time makes us unable to rationally and honestly analyze and learn and move forward.

There are two not-insignificant roadblocks to this. Perhaps more too.

The first one can best be illustrated by a 'lower-caste' friend of mine who once told me that his identity is something he didn't choose and can't escape from, most probably, till he dies.

The second is the weltanschauung question. What if you really do believe that you are part of the blessed tribe/religion/group/whatever. So it also requires a 'scientific worldview' for the lack of a better phrase.

In both, in different ways, the identity imposed or chosen becomes the lifelong prison.

Regards, Jay http://www.jayasankar.org

PS:- Paul, this was too small and sort of 'Cliff Notes' type. May I request a longer, deeper essay.

This essay reminds me of this bollywood song:

  Bulla Ki Jaana

  Not a believer inside the mosque, am I
  Nor a pagan disciple of false rites
  Not the pure amongst the impure
  Neither Moses, nor the Pharoh

  Bulleh! to me, I am not known
  ...
  Secrets of religion, I have not known
  From Adam and Eve, I am not born
  I am not the name I assume
  Not in stillness, nor on the move

  Bulleh! to me, I am not known

Full lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/rabbi_shergill/bulla_ki_j...

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTxZy32Fv_0

It is astounding how little this liberal face of Islam is known outside of the Indian subcontinent and possibly the educated populace of Iran.

Also, this is not a Bollywood song. It is a poem by a 17th/18th century Punjabi Sufi Muslim poet Bulleh Shah performed here by a Punjabi Sikh called "Rabbi" with scenes from Hindu majority India in the background and English subtitles.

So many identities :)

Well, Rumi is the best-selling poet in the United States. Rightly so, too: the Sufi poets are as great as any poetry ever written, I think, and can be astonishingly modern. That being said, I have the impression that they are distinctly non grata in the vast majority of the Muslim world. No?

I think that the point of the article is not to "Keep Your Identity Small", but to not be a jerk about it. "Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic." People's actions are not the result of their beliefs, but themselves. The topic of conflict, religion (one of your examples), is only the medium. To rephrase, people decide when to fight, the people's beliefs are only a push. With enough discipline, a hardcore religious person can avoid a religious war.

> Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

From what I can tell, Mr. Graham, you make the assumption that identity ('labels') itself is bad and should be minimized. I disagree. Identity, whatever the kind, serves the purpose of providing a person a sense of self. In other words, identity helps create a sense of belonging and protection. Forming an identity is like entering a family.

* Whether that family is good or not is subjective.

Mr. Graham, using your religion metaphor, a religion does provide many useful outcomes. After the Civil War and into Reconstruction, there was massive economic turmoil. There was a large debt to be paid, the sharecropping 'trap', the Financial Crisis of 1837. During that time, a lot of churches were formed. Essentially, the purpose of those churches is to provide emotional relief from the horrid state of the Union. These churches were a coping mechanism for the people. Generally, they worked. People formed a religious identity with the people they were with. Religion provided comfort. Identity is not always bad.

As a political example, in 1860, a party known as the Populist Party was formed. It was composed of farmers and the Grange. These people formed this 'Populist Party' identity because they all faced common problems: long hours, a cycle of debt, and control by monopolies. In a short span of time, the spread their identity and 4 million people joined the movement. They promoted the idea of a 8 hour work week, direct federal loans, and graduated tax rates. Many of these ideas are implemented today. Political identity provided people a voice. Their identity is beneficial to many people today.

* This came from my U.S. History notes from class.

Mr. Graham, I agree with you that social identity causes many problems, but it also provides many benefits. Please do not dismiss identity as completely harmful.

I am sorry if I offended anyone. Downvote me if you wish.

>I think that the point of the article is not to "Keep Your Identity Small", but to not be a jerk about it

Good point. The topics that can be discussed by a group are a function of the civility of its members. Some of the most interesting conversations I've ever had were about religion and politics with civil and mature people.

That's a high standard to ask of a group of strangers on the internet, though.

I think identity requires both the internaliztion of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth. Beliefs make you stupid and strong, especially shared beliefs.

It might not just be identifying with something. It doesn't seem that it's completely identify based, at least to me.

I drive a Jeep -- love old Jeeps. It's part of who I am. But if somebody started ragging on Jeeps in a forum I was in I don't think it'd matter. I wouldn't feel threatened. I like Jeeps. So what. I also like puppies.

Some subjects make people feel threatened because to talk about them, in any fashion, is to personally criticize their judgment and their intelligence.

It's the degree people feel threatened. Most people, when you poke around at their politics or their religion, realize their is something deeply irrational going on in their head. They don't take kindly to having people mucking around in there, questioning their sanity -- their value as a fellow person. Religion and politics are topics where the fact that emotions drive reasoning is very close to the surface. It makes probing difficult.

As a further example, I disagree with Paul's opinion on languages. Inevitably we get into a discussion of what "best" means. At the end of the day, "best" usually means whatever I personally value. To criticize that is to criticize how I make opinions. Paul values terseness. Bob values availability of programmer. Joe values available libraries, etc. Once we start questioning judgment -- especially for programmers -- it gets personal.

I've been in the consulting biz for a while -- long enough to move from code monkey to trying to help managers make better decisions. A lot of this is like poking around in a minefield: on some topics people feel their character/intelligence/judgment is a lot more at stake than others. These are the topics you don't want to go bringing up in a forum, online or not.

I think it is more than just having one's sanity questioned. Speaking for myself, I react this way not because I don't value rationality over what feels good, but its that it seems there is knowledge behind my belief and I'm being forced to reject it because I am not articulate enough to defend it. This can be a major problem if the cultural context of the debate does not contain the right words and concepts to explain what I believe. Consequently, since debates go to the most succinct and clear, I must lose, but not due to necessarily having a more irrational belief. Then, if I persist in my belief, I become ostracized as an irrational person.

Articles like this merely fuel the feeling of impotence in the culturally disadvantaged like myself, leading to a more irrational defense of their (my) beliefs, and a vicious cycle follows. This is the "core going critical" that pg mentions. The ultimate result will be a more "rational" person, but they are more "rational" because they have been lobotimized.

I look at politics and religion as deeply personal choices. I also think they are somewhat "beyond reason" -- I don't want to use the term irrational because my point is that the rules of rationality don't apply. Perhaps trans-rational? And when I mean religion, I include the atheists here. They're as impervious to reason as any of the others, but mostly can't see it, which makes them a bit humorous to deal with.

The problem is that most folks are 1) very uncomfortable with this situation, and 2) can't find the words to express the "why" of what they are saying (except for the rationalists, who will use reason ad infinitum regardless of which side of the issue they stand)

I think the most honest responses are, like yours, where you say that there's good reasons that you just can't get to. I also respect people who say "beats me" -- the agnostics. I'm more of an agnostic these days when it comes to religion, and for a long time I've realized that politics is completely non-rational.

That's not to say you can't use logic and reason in the discussion: I think they provide tools to meet in the middle and share equally. But logic in these discussions has a completely different purpose than it does in say, a geometric proof. It's a flashlight in a dark, constantly changing room. It's not the light switch. Most people miss that point.

I enjoy seeing people talk about religion and politics (as long as it's civil) because it gives me an idea of how they think. It's neat to watch people struggle with really tough questions. Who knows? There might be something I could learn there. But I can see where it can destroy a forum.

Hey pg, here is at least one situation that entirely backs up your theory.

I'm not a Freemason, but one of the rules of Freemasonry is that politics and religion are NOT to be discussed while within the lodge.

This is done in part so that no mason will have to justify their personal interpretation of either (and thus their identity) to any other mason while in the lodge.

Perhaps they were onto something (apart from getting drunk and playing ping pong)

The notion that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion is a staple bit of folk wisdom dispensed by parents, grandparents, various other elders, and barkeeps the world over.

The notion that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion is a staple bit of folk wisdom dispensed by parents, grandparents, various other elders, and barkeeps the world over.

...but it's not a universal piece of folk wisdom. In fact it's the significant minority

When you consider 68% of the world of the world is composed under the belief structures of the 3 primary religions (christianity, islam, hinduism) and religion is primarily passed from the parent to the child, I find that parents (and so by inference, grandparents) suggesting that it is impolite to discuss religion a hard pill to swallow.

When you take almost all other religions into account, Non Religious people account for around 21% of the world's population, with some of those are agnostic people (like myself).

My grandfather gave me that advice, and he's a member of the clergy. There are varying levels of social sophistication amongst religious people. In general those born into some sort of longstanding cultural religion tend to not bring it up in polite conversation. It's the newly converted noobs, or perhaps a crazy aunt, who ruin the dinner party.

Your crazy aunts don't necessarily need to be religious to ruin dinner parties.

Many of my family Christmas' have been ruined by drunken dancing old women :)

I disagree that the more labels someone has the dumber they make you. And I strongly disagree in that. I know people that believe in almost nothing. Not in a religion, not a programming language. Sure there won't ever be a religious argument. But also probably no discussion at all because there is nothing to talk about with them. I have a lot of believes and disbelieves but I still consider myself able to talk about those things without ending in a fight.

Yes, and pg also doesn't observe that a person's identity tends to be strongly tied to things that provide for their welfare. For the common person, religion and politics do this. For the elite, not so much. But, say if they are programmers, they can have a strong identity tie to their editor (vi vs emacs) or language, since they depend on these things to prosper in life.

This is not merely an unthinking thing on their part. Considering other points of view and trying new things can take up a person's time. Claiming that the basis of their welfare is incorrect implies it is taking away from their welfare and they should try something else. If a person reacts "irrationally" on such an issue this may be because they do not judge their resources sufficient to change course. I think "irrationality" should be addressed on these grounds instead of merely labelling a person's opinion as irrational/bad, along with the social estrangement this entails.

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.

I don't see how you've concluded that belief is a precondition to discussion. Do you only ever discuss subjects that you have a deeply-held opinion on?

The thing that politics and religion have in common, is that they have large organizations that actively cultivate emotional responses and ideological conformity.

Organized religions do this because that's how they attract and hold on to followers.

Politicians and interest groups frame issues in emotional, moral, and ideological terms, because emotion and social pressure motivates voters to get off their butt and go to the polls. Rational self interest cannot motivate voters, because the effort it takes to vote is greater than the direct reward. The press sensationalizes politics and stokes fears of "the other" because emotion sells. The polarization starts at the top and trickles down into every internet comment thread.

Electoral/partisan democracy is poisonous. The Venetians had the right idea in using lotteries to select officials.

I think Paul Graham is mistaken that large identities are the problem. I think plenty of programmers have big egos too.

I propose the difference is the traditions about how to argue politics and religion, which don't apply as much to arguing javascript. Even people with low egos can have fruitless discussions about politics, because they are so accustomed to making certain kinds of statements which replay the same scene the other guy also knows how to have. Persuading anyone takes more lateral thinking than that.

I do agree that strongly identifying with ideas is a bad thing. As Popper said, we should let our ideas die in our place. We can change our minds! If you identify as someone who cares about the truth and isn't attached to any particular idea, that is best.

The key to having a sane political discussion is to remember that the survival of your tribe does not actually depend on the outcome of the discussion. Discuss politics as an observer of a complex and fascinating system, not as a participant trying to influence events. Despite what your grade school teachers taught you, unless you're Paul Krugman or Samantha Powers your political views do not matter.

People act hysterical in political debates because they feel threatened. But the pseudo-anonymous commenter you are debating has an infinitesimally small impact on policy. So stop feeling threatened. While the policy in question may or may not be disastrous, getting angry in a comment thread is not going to make a whit of difference.

This confluence of religion and politics was especially prominent in the recent gay marriage debate.

Really, the entire issue revolves around the word "marriage" having a dual meaning in a religious sense and a (government) civil contract sense. When the government "redefines" civil marriage (e.g. with the inclusion of interracial couples), religious organizations can still retain their own definitions of marriage.

If the government had originally had all couples register as "civil unions" and optionally marry in churches, then surprisingly this debate may never have occurred -- it is purely semantical.

At the popular level, yes. But there are other concerns, like the practical basis of marriage rights for procreation and that it is contrary to the American experiment to mandate gay marriage for all states.

1. There is no practical basis of marriage rights for procreation. This is proved by the prevelance of men and women who remain married without having children, and the vast numbers of unmarried parents.

2. I wish that you would define what you mean by "contrary to the American experiment." No one is advocating gay marriage for all states. Many people are demanding their own state government recognize civil marriage as distinct from religious marriage, and that all citizens have equal rights to civil marriage.

If 1 is true, then marriage should no longer have special status in our laws. So, instead of trying to get the government to recognize gay marriage, the special rights for marriage should be largely done away with, or made dependent on actually having children.

For 2 I am wrong and uninformed then. If it is only a state by state issue and it is supported by the majority of a state, then I don't see a problem.

Looking at pg's title, I thought this essay was going to be about keeping your online identity small or centralized - which, would have been interesting given today's decentralized social web identities.

I think the problem isn't necessarily identity itself so much as when people react to criticism of things they identify with as if they were physical attacks on territory. Something in the animal brain feels threatened, and at that point the conversation turns into a confrontation.

Maybe there's an assumption here that identity has to be constant. If we erase that assumption and accept our identities as a continuous transformation throughout our lives... :

Perhaps keeping your identity flexible can be better at protecting against useless discussion. And the key thing above any consideration of identity is to focus on receive as well as transmit, and to remember to couple the two with some sort of processing. The key point about identity isn't particularly its size, but its flexibility.

A small, inflexible identity is simply a harder target to hit, but when you hit it you'll still find useless discussions there. A large, flexible identity is easy to hit, but when you hit it, you're very likely to find interesting discussions. A small, flexible identity is hard to interest, discussions will fizzle uninterestingly long before the religious war, unless you happen to hit the right topic in which case you'll find a good discussion. A large, inflexible identity is easy to hit and the main cause of pointless discussions.

The best discussions are where flexible identities meet, regardless of their size. A useless discussion is one where the participants come away unchanged. A good discussion is one where the participants come away changed (ie, with something that they didn't have before). You need to be flexible for that.

Of course, there is such a thing as being too flexible...

The dumb behavior is not just from identity, but from identity as part of a social group.

People identify strongly with plenty of things without getting stupid over them. Being a good bargain hunter, or a collector of ceramic frogs, or having skin cancer might be an important part of your identity. But for the most part, these are not identities that provoke people to shout slogans at rallies or spend hours typing insults to other usernames on a discussion board.

But when you are identifying with a group, then "you" becomes "us", and the social interaction becomes "us vs. them". It is human nature to enjoy these kind of conflicts, to demonstrate that you're a loyal member of "us", and that you are ready to do battle with "them".

Unfortunately, when this plays out in a discussion group, it results in rude, repetitive, and boring conversations.

Also, I do not think it is workable to say "don't identify yourself with social groups because it will make you stupid". That is much like saying "don't let yourself feel sexual attraction because it will make you stupid". While true, it's only telling part of the story, and in any case impractical for most people. Better to be aware of your natural inclination for group bonding, and try to manage it and be aware of when it is managing you.

Such is the wisdom of Zen and some other Buddhist philosophical flavors.

Buddhists aren't immune to squabbling about ideological differences, either, of course. (But meditation helps.)

Buddhist practitioners are human too, of course, but a central practice in Buddhism is to dissolve and refute concrete belief in a persistent self and consciousness.

Try breaking up an inner city gang fight by telling them to let their concrete beliefs dissolve in persistent self and consciousness.

My point is that this zen buddhism stuff is mainly the luxury of the elite few. Others have to grapple with the practicalities of daily survival, group membership, and hope for the future. Out of such things come the hard forged religious and political systems.

No one lives in a persistent fight. But for those that do experience conflict, I don't see how those who needn't sustain their identity in the face of adversity fare much worse than others.

I know. Anatman. I had disagreements between Buddhists in the Mahayana and Theravada schools in mind, though: I don't know of any escalating to violence(!), but the former calling the latter "Hinayana" (which is kind of like "The Inferior Way (to enlightenment)") is pretty petty. Nobody is immune to "my school of thought is better than yours" identity squabbling, unfortunately.

I think that some Buddhist practices are a pretty direct attempt to keep this sort of behavior in check, but still the old habits take a long time to simmer down. I think the central problem is when something in the animal brain mistakes criticism of identity for a physical threat. Meditation helps to see this for what it is and let it go, most of the time.

A central practice of Buddhists in 13th century Japan was to stab other people with swords.

Humans have wonderfully malleable minds.

These practices are not really inconsistent...

Really, it's a short step from "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" to "if you meet some dude on the road...."

in very simple words selfish thoughts are the cause of a suffering (the third of the Four Noble Truths), so, all the benefits of a small identity is just an effect.

the key is the "self" in "selfish"...

It is interesting that you have marked a philosophy that moves people to lead lives of monastic asceticism as a philosophy that encourages a small identity.

I wouldn't read too much into that. Many philosophies so move some people. I marked a philosophy which rejects the reality of a "self" that is separable from the rest of the universe.

I think the flipside of this is people liking to belong to groups. Most of the time belonging to any group with a properties that are essentially homogenous across the members involves some suspension of disbelief. Once people have made that leap and accepted whatever core values those are, they in turn define themselves in those terms, ignoring the fact that they weren't rationally vetted or arrived at through independent thought on the way in. Then if you've got some logisticians among the group, they'll go to great lengths to systematically rationalize the things that they mostly accepted because they're a part of that group. (I certainly do.) This goes from anything from political activism to religion to free software.

This of course isn't necessarily bad or wrong -- in fact I think society would scarcely function were for it not for a modicum of such behavior -- but it does mean that people aren't having these debates in the way that they would another debate -- because they've already know the answer, they're just trying to convince others that their opinion isn't stupid and wrong.

For those who don't think it's possible to argue about such technical subjects (with a threshold for expertise) as JavaScript, take a look at any recent conversation involving mathematics and the infamous JSH on the sci.math USENET group. (I'm not posting a link, but just Google "sci.math".)

JSH is an amateur pseudo-mathematician who believes (falsely) that he has solved numerous difficult problems in mathematics...he has his own proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, he has (most recently) proposed a (wrong) solution to the integer factorization problem, he has attempted to solve the Traveling Salesman problem, etc.

My point is not that JSH is not very good at math, but rather that there are people who hate this guy more than Hitler. People waste hours bashing him, trying to diagnose psychiatric conditions that they believe he has (the consensus seems to be "narcissistic personality disorder"), and generally tearing this guy to shreds. Over math.

Here's a brief excerpt from a recent conversation about JSH's factoring algorithm:

"Do you realize you are full of s---? You have nothing! You can't demonstrate remarkable claims on a worthwhile problem. That is [sic] classi[c] snake oil salesman, charlatan and cheat. It speaks of your narcissism! Get your head out of your a--! You have zero!"

Anyway, does anyone really think that mathematics is a part of these people's identities? I found the essay thought-provoking as well...but anything can be controversial. The people involved in this thread DO have expertise, and they definitively know that JSH is wrong. This doesn't stop them from spending hours hashing out their arguments. Why can't they just ignore him?

I think, quite honestly, that some people just find it fun/stimulating to argue with and insult each other.

Just I have this thought that if the world is not what it is...and everyone followed basic logic, then the world would have been a dull place to live in. No colors, just everything in black and white based on some accepted commonsense...it is the diversity that gives color to life. I hope your JSH is enjoying this attention and bashing in that forum:-)

I forgot to add one important thing...the brain cells need something different everytime to propagate and prosper (whatever that means), and the best inputs to brain are not the same recurring patterns but totally new and diversified patterns.

Great post. It strikes me that even when we try to avoid labels for ourselves, sometimes they are imposed by others. And sometimes a further step happens beyond the labels: consequences are imposed, depending on the labels.

This kind of imposition from the outside can sometimes leak into ones self-identity. Hyphenated Americans, for example, often start out as thinking of themselves as just Americans, but then discover that their experience is different, and they have a shared peer group of other people who have had the same experiences, because of what is imposed on them by others. And then, we blame them for calling themselves <foo>-American, when actually it was not necessarily their own doing.

Given such, it's also not hard to see why some people will decide that they would prefer to wear a label (atheist/theist/gay/Asian/Bush Supporter/whatever) as a badge of pride. Not saying this is or is not an ideal state of affairs, just that it's understandable.

Identity as a person is much more widely present than identity in terms of religion, programming language, economic stance, nationalism or culture, Imagine someone makes a critical statement about your personal character, The way we respond to it is obviously different from a generic statement. Whether or not, one tries to look at the statement as it is, there is usually also a powerful psychological response which is triggered and this will too often also be the basis for action. As one forms various identities, conversations about these new topics will lead to the same response.

The interesting question is how is this 'minimizing of identity' to be done? One idea i've heard is the following, Usually this psychological response happens in the background, the unconscious so to speak, Instead one can be try to be aware of it, not just abstractly but live. Watching a reflexive response and its influence on action at the same time as it happens.

I think this is a good argument for minimising one's identity.

But there can be good reasons in particular cases for taking on some identity. For example, oppression is often begun to be fought by the oppressed joining together under a shared identity.

In general, people typically take on an identity — or keep one that they find themselves with (upbringing) — to feel that they belong in some group of people. But I don't think that sticking some big label on oneself is necessary for belonging. One can belong in the group of one's friends and family just by being one anothers' nearest and dearest, not through being fellow x-ists or y-arians. And being partial to one's nearest and dearest as such isn't in itself harmful, only mutually beneficial to those involved, and beneficial to others since a group of mutually supportive individuals reduces the demands those individuals might make against those outwith that group.

Spoken like a true, "objective", small-identity scientist. The problem with that view is that we all do have an identity, and attempting to deny, suppress, or "put aside" our identity is fairly impossible. A better path IMHO, is to realize a larger identity. Broadening of the identity is the natural progression from infancy to adult. Quote from Einstein: "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

1.Identity is the boundary that separates 'I' from 'non-I'. 2.In order for us to become universal, this boundary must vanish. 3.It is the 'I' that is the doer of anything we do,so this 'I' needs to be expanded rather than contracted. 4.When the the 'I' expands, ultimately it can include everything within it's fold and the boundary can be pushed off to infinity, for all practical purposes making it vanish 5.The way to do it is by experiencing our essential 'self' or consciousness, the sub -stratum of all our thoughts through a natural meditation technique like TM. 6.With practice, we can learn to live the boundless even while acting within the boundaries. 7.This will allow any amount of differentiation at the level of thought and action while keeping all differences integrated and mutually supportive.

I think politics and religion are very different than most other disagreements because they extend beyond that one person. When a person believes in fascisim or racism, they begin advocating policies to force their believes on others. Religion gets tossed in there because a long time ago morality got tied to religion.

So in my opinion, people get into "religious wars" because the beliefs of other affect them.

Hell, when people get all worked up about a language there are benefits to convincing people to use their language -- better tool support, better libraries etc; and if they are on the losing side of a language they will have to learn another one.

In the end these types of debates are all about control, either direct or indirect. Direct -- Force, rule of law, etc ... Indirect -- public opinion, social mores, # of followers.

Having a "small identity" has cost me a bit as a writer. I once interned at a magazine that was looking for contributors to their politics blog, covering this presidential election. I don't have a political science degree. I never worked in government or on a campaign. So I didn't think it'd make sense for me to start opining on the horserace in the way they were looking for. Other interns were more than happy to leap into the fray despite being in the same boat more or less.

So while I'd rather hang out with people who don't argue about things they know nothing about. I think the market favors the bold, and that includes people leaping into debates about things they know nothing about.

I've found that the best way to do this is to make "values the truth above everything else" be the core of your identity.

Then you can let yourself peripherally identify with other things, and, when they're challenged, your core will step in and let you deal with the challenge rationally.

But doing that is even harder than it might sound. I've been explicitly working on it for a couple years now, and although I've made progress -- I think I care about getting the truth more than I care about avoiding embarrassment now, for example -- I'd still probably religiously defend myself or my loved ones if either were verbally attacked rather than try to figure out what truth the accusation contained.

Being honest to yourself is much harder than it seems. Have you read Ghandi's "Experiments with Truth" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_My_Experiments_wit... ?

To be means to be something - ie have and identity. Your identity depends upon what you are and what you make of yourself. If you seek your identity from others, then conflicting discussions of religion and politics can be seen as an assault on your identity.

If you are self defined, you prefer that others see you as you are. However, if they don't, its their loss not yours. You are still what you are.

If you are other defined, you have no identity of your own. You have taken it piecemeal from those around you. Your identity has been diminished to a singularity that can be attacked by a single conflicting opinion. What you are becomes deeply threatened.

This is an interesting concept, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

A lot of people ask me of what ancestry I am and usually I tell them "I dunno.". The usually are incredibly surprised by this answer and I usually reply with something like, "I don't care whom came before me, because it has no effect on me now, and it can only bias my thinking."

The exceptions to this idea, for instance it is very useful to know whom begat you for genetic counseling, but on the whole, this policy makes it so that the only labels that affect my life are the obvious ones - unless I make an effort to introduce new ones.

I don't see how scientific identity falls outside identity politics. Humans have a tribalistic genetic heritage, and so we behave this way.

I would say that the better you understand your identity, the better positioned you are to escape a slavish defense of it.

But you also have to be careful not to avoid conversations just because they are difficult. Religion and politics are in one sense two sides of the same coin. It might be better to contrast religion and democracy.

Just because the answers aren't easy to access doesn't mean the struggle to find them isn't worth having. ...no matter how messy.

I think that for myself identity got formed by a progression of feeling-states informed by listening, writing, and learning. I can't feel proactively. I feel re actively and am formed. I think these feelings are like polarized or fissile material. The big polarized feelings get shaped by reading and listening.(by great books, for instance) Without identity, would a person have any motivation to act, is my question. I've tried hard not to be co-opted by isms or identity politics, but to participate, to have passion, you rely on the polarized core. Or at least, I do. In starting a business, or doing something for myself that takes passionate intensity I have always had to take a leap of faith. The faith is in myself and in the direction my inner polarized identity seems to be taking me. This is akin to what startup advocates mean when they say:"I couldn't have worked that hard for that long if it was only about the money." I agree with keeping a close eye on what you allow into your identity. keeping it small is a Tauist ideal that I find doesn't gibe with real life sometimes. Ego and pride can be really useful. Ghandi had an ego, as did MLK. It's a high ideal to be and to remain an uncarved block. A very high standard. Confucianism has sort of displaced the Tau in general society. I think because rules make it possible for people with all kinds of identities to make agreements and find ways of going forward.

Any takers for the idea of identity being required for motivation?

I totally agree with the essence of the argument but I don't think "identity" is the right word here. I think tribalism is what the author was getting at. Tribalism separates people into "us vs. them" kind of groupings and the more tribal minded someone is, the dumber he/she gets, as the author suggested. Religion and politics are only 2 forms of tribalism but there are others like sports, or nationality. Someone's identity definitely contains all these but as someone else pointed, there are non-tribal aspects of identity as well.

Rather than letting as few things into one's identity as possible (which might prohibit growth), why not actively absorb the opposite viewpoints? Keep your identity balanced, not necessarily small.

Doing so intentionally and temporarily can be a good way to expose viewpoints you may not realize you've internalized. (Meditation helps, too.)

Also, think about what stuff in your mental surroundings (things you read regularly, etc.) tend to reinforce certain beliefs you already have.

I agree with almost everything Paul says, but will add one caveat: ego-driven people--I'm careful not to include everyone in that category, but do tend to think most people are at least partially ego-driven--tend to be driven by their attachment and identification with/as something.

For instance, say someone takes a jab at some aspect of another person's identity like their ability to comprehend a complicated philosophical concept or programming construct (or something). At this point the second person may feverishly try to defend herself, reading all about this construct and related constructs. Even if she reads to defend herself, and in the process gets a somewhat skewed view of what is more or less objectively decidable, is it the case that she's dumber than before for having read all that? Another option is to have not been involved in the argument and perhaps as a result less prone to bias on the issue, but also less likely to have just done all that reading to clarify and defend herself.

This isn't necessary in contradiction with what Paul wrote, but it does add a little nuance to what was stated pretty bluntly: that the bigger your identity becomes, the dumber you become.

As an aside, I see a tiny bit of irony that the spirit of what Paul is saying is similar to that of Buddhism, which says that attachment and identification results in suffering (not just stupidity). Buddhism rules! Your religion sucks!

Edit: okay, so after going through a few more posts, my Buddhism crack isn't so original or funny. Doh!

I'm not sure that 'identity' can carry all the weight for why 'non-academic' discussions devolve into arguments. Unless you mean identity with the group and not some nefarious identity that is contained within the individual's psyche.

I'm thinking that people sometimes enjoy being right about something. They enjoy having an opinion that has merit and that can benefit others. Sometimes expressing an opinion can be just to 'one-up' the guy who is castigating some poor bloke in a forum who failed to articulate his position well and who is now being bullied. Sometimes the expression of an opinion can be meant to come to the defense of another. Perhaps it is those unspoken elements of human communication, the binding and unbinding of groups, that are being transgressed, or which we mistakenly believe so, and not our sense of identity, which gradually raises one's ire when their opinion is being criticized, tested or what have you.

One of the reasons we communicate our positions is to ally ourselves with others. We find common ground and can then feel apart of. People get upset when they risk losing this common ground. When the matter is not so crucial, such as the preference for an x or y programming language, their chances of losing affinity with the group is less and so they tend to be more easy going about the expression and consideration of their /preferences. That's my 2 cents :)

ideology seems to be a case of the ego boundary being mistakenly extended to include social constructs.

But really, CSS is better for layout.

... ;)

> all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

pg at his best; a truth I've known without ever Knowing, expressed clearly and concisely.

> 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.

This part, though, is totally and completely false. I contend that it only seems this way to pg because the scientific spirit is so deeply integrated into himself that he can no longer see it.

And this points to a deeper part of the message, for me; everyone has these perspectives, they're a part of the way you choose the world. Strive to minimize them, but accept the ones you have, don't pretend that they don't exist, and certainly don't try to justify them by saying that they exist as reality.

Alternatively, become a buddhist and spend your entire life with the goal of emptying yourself of these lenses to see humanity as essentially undifferentiated from everything.

Not sure about the identity bit, been very sure of who I am since I was a small boy and so not interested in what others presume. I don’t get caught up in arguing anything that is based only on belief or opinion. Believe whatever you like.

In your definition of ‘scientist’ do you include medical doctors?

During a period of seriously ill health I saw a clutter of ‘ highly respected specialists ‘ — by some! In the course of which I was told with varying degrees of anger and arrogance that: acupuncture; chiropractic treatment and hypnosis did not work, could not work and that those who believed in them were either idiots or delusional.

Interestingly the attempts, by those who bothered, to explain results obtained were so far off the planet that tooth fairies, father christmas and honest politicians were decidedly ordinary every day events.

Then there is a book, forbidden science where people like the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison and a host of others were written off as either delusional or charlatans, perhaps both, or worse by the scientists of their day.

(Everybody knew that heavier than air machines could not fly! )

Meta-Politics(Religion) is another way to talk about it, like PG's essay did.

To assume an identity is a natural trait of every human. It has harmed us the most by far. I feel glad such an abstract topic is put in words by Paul. Thanks Paul.

I agree with Paul when he says we need to keep our identity small. Assuming an identity weather it be religious, national or any other, blocks our rational side from seeing things clearly. An identity levies upon the carries a sense of entitlement; it clots our mind with prejudice.

It is high time we stop doing this. And by keeping our identity small we lift the entitlement burden from our head. We no longer need to belong to a particular group, justify certain legacy thoughts that were forced upon us.

Many of the problems we face today are because of carrying identities which we assume by chance! The country where I belong, the language which I speak, the religion which I follow - every thing was enforced upon me by chance. Why should there be a resentment when one tries to shrug an identity.

It will only make our minds clear and we will be left with less burden to carry,

A similar point of view is expressed by czech novelist Milan Kundera in his "Immortality" (http://www.librarything.com/work/2601/41486088), analysing the way people build their outwards identity by means of adding - or subtracting - attributes such as the ones you point out.

Maybe it's not so much religion or politics as it is a matter of open-mindedness vs. close-mindedness. There are extremists on both ends of the spectra on politics and religion. I think a lot of the disputes between humans could be resolved if people were more willing to stop and listen, learn, read, discover, empathize with the plights of others.

I quite liked how you finished up -- very well put.

I would say, though, that on the subject of religion-as-identity, we only permit this kind of accountability-dodging when it involves a monotheism. When someone tries to defend a shoddy point by saying 'it's so because I know it,' we call them a fool. We only allow this defense in the name of 'faith.'

I think basically there are only two things: Facts and Illusions. Non-living entities can never have illusions and they are governed by just plain facts.And so these non-living entities can be objective and perform efficiently. For living entities, facts are still important, but illusions are what gives meaning to life.Identity is one such illusion. An historical example is the biblical theory that earth is the center of the universe. It was a comfortable idea because it gave importance to human beings as the center of creation.So what I realized after reading the essay is that one should know about differences between illusions and facts and do not get carried away by illusions to cause conflicts. Illusions are pleasant, just like good graphics in a video game (although with poor graphics also one can implement the same game logic).

In the early '90s there was a trend to something called "ego-less programming". The idea was to leave your ego at the door when coding, and definitely when doing a code review, thereby removing personality - and personality insult or injury - from questions of code quality. As a then-techie who'd attended a review or two, this struck me as a very good idea.

What you describe as "identity" may be better described as "ego". For most of us, the ego so dominates that the two are indistinguishable: Ego is who we are, ego promotes and defends our identity.

Now, without going all new age on you, think of a moment when your ego has been totallly in control (any episode of rage, be it road or code, is likely a good choice). Now think of how, on your better days, you don't consider that person to be you. Of course it wasn't, it was your ego taking control.

Keeping your identity small is one approach, but perhaps a more fulfilling one is to manage your ego. Recognize it as but one of your tools for personal expression and defense and bring it out only when necessary.

Many of us "identify" with a great many things and this makes life rich. Keeping your identity small may be impoverishing.

Consider discussions on religion or politics you've had with people who seem particularly wise or calm. They are probably among the best and most insightful discussions you've had. And I will bet that the wise person has strongly held beliefs, beliefs that are strongly part of their identity. But they manage their ego: They can consider all sides, and even update their position, because they have separated ego - and externally manifested phenomenom - from identity, an internal state.

(I experienced the ego-less programming trend at Bell-Northern Research, aka BNR, then the research arm of Northern Telecom, now Nortel. I don't know whether it was BNR-specific, Telecom-generic or industry wide. Interestingly, only techies and techie management really seemed to get it. Folks in soft disciplines thought having ego bound with code was necessary to take pride in one's work.)

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

Great quote.

Agreed on the essay. But the question I'm left with: Can you debate religion and politics if you have some refined knowledge on the topics? For instance, I took a bunch of religion and political science courses. The former seems much more tractable to me not because I have a religious identity, but because when I look across the scope of religious identities, I see some common, and wide, themes of humanity. In politics I only see the accumulation of power (no doubt a human trait, but one that doesn't do much good all by itself). Of course, organized religious involves politics too, but I'm much more interested in what it means to be religious (or not) in every day lives. There it's less about a particular religious identity than an identification with the religious.

Paul, brilliant essay. You've eloquently put forward a solid argument about why Foxes are better than Hedgehogs (see: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books...). People's predictive ability (and judgment) seem to diminish proportional to the strength of their belief in some ideology.

Avoiding identifying too much with any worldview seems to be the best path to wisdom. A good resource is Berkeley academic Philip Tetlock's work in this field (http://fora.tv/2007/01/26/Why_Foxes_Are_Better_Forecasters_T...).

Chetan Chawla (chetanchawla@gmail.com)

not all identities are chosen by the individual for the self in the way that this essay assumes. some identities are forced upon specific individuals or groups. is it reasonable to ask those whose identities have been selected for them through accidents of history/birth to keep their identities small? it is ultimately reflexive of reality to ignore these identities? in a democratic society that is struggling to maintain meaningful civic engagement in many sectors, do we really want to reduce conflict over charged political and religious issues? why not have it out verbally over and over? paul graham might be beyond such conversations about politics and religion, but maybe others need to have them. - mark h.

also, there are a number of disciplines and interdisciplines devoted to identity studies (identity politics, african american studies, women studies, queer studies, whiteness, etc.). whether you come from a background to have read them or whether or not you have been conditioned to respect them, they have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues (30-40ish years as a recognized part of academy) and have a lot of smart things to say if this question truly interests you.

I disagree. I'm a scientist; science is part of my identity. Therefore I can't have fruitful discussions about science? About the value of science? I don't think that's correct.

In fact, Paul Graham's set-up is flawed. If the amount of money a policy will cost has a definite answer then there won't be long discussion of how much a policy will cost. Instead the long discussion will be whether it's worth the cost. But if the everyone basically agrees that the policy of clear-cutting the Amazonian rain forest and burning all the wood is not only not worth the cost but a bad idea, then it won't spur long discussions either.

The flaw is rather basic. Paul Graham is conflating politics with specific issues in the political domain. Tsk tsk!

This is one of my favorite PG essays because it's applicable to anyone. I think the opposite is also valid though - an identity that encompasses all. If you think about it, it gives you the same power of objectivity as not letting anything in.

Perhaps some day, the English language will have just one word for politics and religion.

Why would that happen? Just because the two fields have certain things in common doesn't mean they're indistinguishable.

Actually, the two are much closer than you think. All major religions achieved their growth and status by becoming the ideological arm of state power. Both politics and religion are fundamentally about how people think about the rulers.

Organized religion, certainly. However, there is a lot of conflation of Religion and religion (or faith).

I don't disagree with your point, it just deals with very semantically messy stuff.

"All major religions achieved their growth and status by becoming the ideological arm of state power." I wonder whether that's true. Because it seems hard to distinguish from this: "All major religions, because of their growth and status, acquired state power which fuelled their further growth."

To distinguish between the two, we'd want to look for religions that (presumably by good luck) got significant state power before they became widespread. Someone who knows more history than me may have more clue here, but the only example I can think of is that of the pharaoh Ankh-en-aten (= Akhnaten), who basically tried to introduce monotheism into ancient Egypt, with scarcely any success after the end of his reign. That's hardly conclusive, but it seems like evidence for the hypothesis that widespread belief matters more than state power in getting a religion off the ground.

I think it does: belief.

Well, there is one word for something that comprises much of both: ideology.

How would you define ideology? As a person's current set of beliefs? Or as a set of vehemently held beliefs?

Argument is the process of applying logic to a set of ideas. It is based on the premise that logic alone can yield insights and both participants try to use logic to point out fallacies in their opponent's arugment.

If you believe that ideology is someone's current set of beliefs, then ideology is not threatening, as you have a good shot of changing someone's ideology through logic and argumentation.

However, if you believe that ideology is a dogma that someone viciously clings to, then there is no reason to bother arguing, as it could never result in the person conceding a point or changing an opinion.

I the former definition applies to most intelligent people.

In my case, all of my beliefs are provisional. I don't know anything for certain, but I may still engage in argument. I won't necessarily preface the argument with an in-depth acknowledgement of all of the holes I see in the beliefs at hand. Instead, I will see how well they stand up to my opponent's assaults. After all, I've already admitted to myself that they have holes, so now before I abandon them I should give them one last stand to see how they do.

A successful argument is one in which a) I discover more holes, or b) I realize that something I thought was a hole isn't.

Logical argument is quite unlike javascript where there are obvious ways of empirically testing a result. In the more abstract areas of programming there are massive arguments (see LKML, etc.) because it is hard to simply empirically test the result... the concepts are abstract and interwoven, etc.

To read the arguments on LKML, one sees that they are more socratic, more focused on the abstractions and hence are more subject to "ideology" being used rather than simple assertions.

So if you dismimss "ideology" as necessarily uninformed, you are asserting your own "ideology" onto the discussion.

What is a non-ideological argument? Is it something like this?

Person 1: I can't be sure, but I think there is a chance that A

Person 2: I see. I agree that there is a chance that A, but I think there is a greater chance that B.

Person 1: We both make good points.

Person 2: Indeed.

While the above may be an abundantly mature way to address A and B, I find a spirited argument far more informative. For the same reason, I find that it's easier to learn about the nuances of a political issue by reading op-eds written from various perspectives than from reading one supposedly objective "news" article.

The question this raises for me is, what habits of mind are important to keep your downsize your identity? One idea is suggested in the essay: if you find yourself thinking, I'm an X, but tolerant of Y, that's a warning sign. Any others?

Paul, this was another good essay.

However, I have to fundamentally disagree with the idea that identity makes one "stupid." When I was a teenager, I had very little in the way of identity, but I was very stupid. :-)

There are many parts of a person's identity. Some are chosen, while others are factual. I can't change who my parents are, what my race is, or where I was born. But they do make up who I am and who you are. We cannot ignore them, and trying to do so causes other problems later in life.

Chosen aspects of one's identity are neither bad nor "stupid." Rather, the reasons people incorporate and cling to certain identities may be, and are the root of the problems you describe.

Example: Atheism vs. Religion.

Electing to identifying with one's self with either of these groups does not [inherently] make one smarter, dumber, stronger, or weaker. What's important is _why_ one chooses to identify with that group.

Does one choose religion to fill a hole in their life or perhaps a fear of death?

If so, then having that identity (hopefully) adds value to, and makes them happier; that's fantastic! But that reason also means when another - opposing identity - challenges their religion, they are threatening that happiness. Defense ensues.

Does one choose atheism in order to feel smarter or to be different/non-conformist?

If so, then when someone with a religious identity tries to talk with them about it, their intellect or uniqueness is suddenly threatened. Defense ensues.

Yet there are many people who have identified themselves as religious, and others as atheist, who are perfectly capable of having very pleasant conversations about life, the universe, and everything, together, for many hours. Why is that? Because their identity wasn't chosen to fill a void, to provide direction, or convince them of something. Instead, it was because that is what made the most sense to them. They are still excited to learn more, and are capable of stating "I don't know [everything]."

Identity is a very _good_ thing. Just be sure you choose your identity for the right reasons.

Jeff M.

This is the same idea that is expressed in the concept of bike shedding on software projects. It comes up when naming things and other simple tasks.

When everyone thinks that they can have an opinion, then discussion degenerates into simple "mine is better than yours", same with politics and religion. Same with Vi and Emacs. Same with get_items() or retrieve_notes().

Look on some mailing lists for conversations over naming things for some good examples.

http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thre...

The essay reminded me of the blog "Overcoming Bias," the whole point of which I believe is that by removing these minor biases that we pick up as part of ourselves we can become more rational, smarter people.

Zen, ego, statecraft, belief systems and barriers of entry.

Perhaps read 'The Relation of Science and Religion', Richard P. Feynman.

I have chewed this cud before: http://tr.im/f95s

I'm not sure a biblical literalist would necessarily reject natural selection -- the fact that species change over time to adapt to their environments can be proven through direct observational evidence, not just inference based on fossil records.

She might object to the thought that unguided processes such as natural selection produced all life on Earth, however, and may even correctly infer a certain amount of philosophical bias / involvement of some people's identities in their arguments for such a thought.

You stole the idea right out from under me. I've been writing a book on this for a year now.

All very good points you make here. The biggest challange for most people will be refusing to identify themselves with the nation-state in which they live. People who don't share their fellow citizens' patriotism and national identity risk alienation and shunning. Plus, there is the issue of what we 'owe' our country, in return for all the many benefits we enjoy by living here. Some say we owe our loyalty.

The fact that you think well enough to correctly judge your level of expertise and whether you should jump into the conversation puts you a step ahead of the majority of the population in the first place.

For most, expertise or knowledge is relative to the expertise of the people they are speaking to. Sit in your average city coffee house and listen to the bs getting tossed around... it will amaze you, and show you the importance of associating with smart people.

I think a highly effective alternative to restraint in identity is a deep and comprehensive appreciation for all identities. That is, the interest, willingness, and passion to accommodate all relevant identities. Karen Armstrong calls this "compassion". I submit it would be healthier for discussion to deeply and compassionately embrace otherness rather than to be identity agnostics.

I concur that noncompassionate identity can poison a discussion.

Only had time to skim the comments but here's mine anyways. Your essay has a lot to do with a self perpective and the balance between objectivity and subjectivity in a belief system. It kind of splits people into two groups Objective and Subjective with a bias towards objective being "better" - smallness of self tends toward objectivity.

Going further, the only two types of people in the world are those that split people into two groups and those that don't

I agree with most of your analysis, except for your premise that if two opposing views cannot be proven wrong, then all opinions are "valid" (I hope I paraphrased that correctly). It is my view that in matters such as religion, it is true it cannot be proven wrong; however, if no evidence exists for one side, and much evidence is presented which points to another view, then the latter view is more closer to a "valid" one than the former.

Paul, as usual,you make some excellent points here. Keep up the excellent work!

Here's my two cents. Identity plays a pivotal role in humanity. How much is too little? How much is too much? It's hard to pin-point. I think it has changed throughout history, and, like a lot of things, its usefulness is evolving more rapidly as time progresses. So, it's a balancing act, and it constantly needs attention to do it right.

This seems to me to be an inversion of Nietzsche's Perspectivism:

"There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective 'knowing'; the more affects we allow to speak about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use or the same thing, the more complete will be our concept of the thing, our 'objectivity'."

In other words, Nietzsche says in order to be more objective we should maximize the things that we identify with.

Well, if identity is just a shortcut to forming exclusionary, co-operative groups in the competition for scarce resources, then keeping one's identity small (i.e. not identifying with many groups) is not necessarily good advice. There's a lot of interesting literature on this spawned from studies of supposedly ethnic conflict in areas such as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

For a substantiative account of how to proceed when these issues arise, see the Harvard Negotiation Project's book "Difficult Conversations". Their thesis in a nutshell is that difficult conversations are made up of three simultaneous conversations: The Facts conversation, the Feelings conversation, and the Identity conversation. They give advice based on that framework.

I just found out that the founding father's intention of political system was modeled after the science movement in the 18th Century. This article and the video link below is enlightening. Thank you.

http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2009/01/a-video-introduct...

Interesting post Paul - you essay is exactly why today I decided to take another run at Practical Common Lisp rather than starting a blog about the Demopublicans and Republocrats (I can't tell who is who anymore...)bankrupting America as I was considering. I made that decision before I saw your essay.

I just hope there is a need for Lisp programmers after the uprising or apocalypse... ;-)

p.s. http://www.aegisub.net/2008/12/if-programming-languages-were...

I have a friend who, when asked his nationality, will always respond "citizen of the world". He thinks that the answer has much to recommend it and that it is not an identity. He is right in the first respect and very wrong in the other.

Ditto with "Having considered the alternatives rationally, I reject the notion of having an identity vis a vis [religion, politics, etc]".

I think the problem your friend is doing it that he/she thinks people will draw conclusions from his identity.

I'm Swedish. But it doesn't mean that I'll defend Sweden in a war against Norway. I have very little more in common with the Swedes who lives on the border to Norway then the Norwegians who live on the border to Sweden. However, I'm Swedish - I grew up there and I have my cultural heritage from there. That's not wrong - it's just fact

I agree. But there is another, perhaps even more important factor. That is market vs. politics. In a market, every strong opinion has a chance to get realized. In politics, only one opinion is chosen.

Hot debates do happen in market as well, but they are rarely a problem as all opinions get realized as long as they prove demand that they can fulfill.

I only skimmed the article (sorry), but I'm not so sure about Paul's thesis that a barrier to entry is the problem.

As I see it, the problem starts with things that are unprovable and therefore hard to debate--and unwillingness to accept that you might be wrong, since these unprovables are often at the core of the person's belief in the world.

Many identities give out higher level of comprehension. You could have more identities and keep them as resources to use instead of as labels to show off. But, that's rare, most people don't have that ablility to learn as much as possible. So in common, sticking on fewer identities normally prevails.

One thing that makes me crazy is how americans tend to place labels in people since their teens: that's a loser, two nerds, three jocks, four yuppies, etcetcetc. Once people are stigmatized with those, it's hard to backtrack, and my feeling is that they tend to go all the way with others' expectations of them.

> There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers, like how much a new government policy will cost.

Even this statement is not true. Government policies may have costs and benefits; the true cost needs to take into account the net position, so a myopic focus on costs is disingenuously partisan.

I'm pretty sure we could argue about Javascript. Just mention Prototype and the jQuery zealots are relentless! :P

A wonderful essay and truly a joy to read. This is very close to some stuff that I read in Gurdjieff's writings some time ago, and it's the first time I see the concept of "identification as a bad thing" outside of those writings. Thanks for this insightful take on a very interesting subject for me.

Doesn't not having an a lot of identities give you an identity of someone who doesn't have a lot of identities? Are you not looking down on those who think they have the Truth by saying I have the Truth and the Truth is that identities don't matter? I find people in that group the most most smug and intolerant of all. If I think that vi is better than emacs, and you say the opposite we can discuss it. I can agree with you belief that there is a better editor. If I say editors don't matter and they are all the same, I am saying I have a higher truth. This attitude was debunked in PGs essay "Revenge of the Nerds." PG has formally adopted the role of Pointy Haired Boss!

I have the Truth and the Truth is you don't matter (to me).

What matters is what works. What editor you use doesn't matter, use whatever works best for you, but don't identify with it. What car you drive doesn't matter, drive whatever you like, but don't identify with it. In very few instances is one set of beliefs objectively better than another, so don't identify with a belief that is not.

Religion versus atheism is such a case; faith (belief in the absence of evidence) makes you stupid.

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

I've also seen this happen on forums where people mention vi or emacs :)

In a slight out of context side;It is Dilemma;Your Expertise tend to Identify You and tend to become your Identity.What Paul is saying to go beyond, and still have expertise and not been identfied by them;In real world, i see it as a challenge.

Simplifying one's personal identity is a hard path to follow and a good way to get to feeling lost. It takes a lot of faith to put one foot in front of the other when the path before you spans wide, untrodden.

Eckhart Tolle sells a good mindset to carry this sort of work.

Paul - a good point about identity: much of the flameage in political/religious discussions stems from people feeling threatened by beliefs different from their own: taking these beliefs as personal attacks (which they too often degenerate into).

Actually, a mention of a programming language on an Internet forum also degenerates into a religious argument. And, sadly, too many people feel they don't need any particular expertise to argue Javascript, either.

Not your best effort. You seem to be arguing against having core beliefs. Yet having read your essays I would find it extremely hard to believe that you practice what you preach.

I think that he isn't so much arguing against having core beliefs as he is arguing against maintaining a minimum number of social identities. Overall, I think he is taking a rationalist approach.

pg cites being a scientist as a good example of a minimalist objective. He seems to be getting at a social version of occam's razor.

I'm not sure what "core beliefs" means precisely. But if it means beliefs you wouldn't discard even in the face of evidence to the contrary, it would seem good to have as few of those as possible.

I think identity requires both the internalization of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth.

"I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions."

In the context of HN or other topic specific forums your points are valid. Check your guns at the door.

See also: Parkinson's Law of Triviality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed

I cannot agree more, actually I wrote a similar post weeks ago

Edward

Frontier Blog - No one ahead, no one behind http://www.hwswworld.com/wp

Take languages for example, one speaks more than one languages could obviously strike dumb the one sticks on his mother tongue in an international stage.

Although I agree with you, the problem in keeping identity small is that you become a low profile. In this such society this not always represents a good thing.

So the Buddha was right. Ok. I suppose it bears repeating: attachments are the root cause of suffering.

On the other hand, some do not crave a quiet life.

To quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

PG, I think there might be a typo: "is strongly held beliefs" should be "are strongly held beliefs:.

reminds me of what you said on anti-yellowism, best to not care on most things people are fervent about, and what you said about historical imperfections in maps. i agree wholeheartedly and suggest this as a good example of minimalism at work.

Except it does degenerate when you talk about Javascript/C#/VB/Java/Closure

Politics + Religions = Collection of Rational and Irrational Beliefs.

The less points you have to defend, the better off you'll be.

Ideologues seek confirmation. Pragmatists seek falsification.

on that bit about policy costs being definite, I have a simple objection.

hmm. policy costs are usually estimates and thus are are usually colored by ideology.

imo

It’s REALLY about beliefs: The more PERMANENT labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

I believe Paul cut all the way to the core and stopped one step short of the finishing line.

Let’s ask the obvious question and think about it: So, what do you do next?

If you were to decide to keep your identity small, how would you go about it?

The key is NOT in identity size.

In fact, the essay is not about IDENTITY at all. (Paul commits some equivocation in discussing identity, and let’s face it: it’s tough not to:)

The essay is about limiting beliefs that disserve progress.

The strategy is to remove unwanted parts of your identity so you can adopt different "identities" at will.

The tactic is to remove limiting beliefs directed to unwanted goals (all beliefs are goal-directed) and adopt different beliefs as an act of will.

The approach is to practice disassociation.

I’m glad you’re with me so far:) Keep on reading, it gets better.

So, one may ask, what is a Belief? A conviction of a "truth of a statement" or "reality of a fact"

How about Conviction? =an assertion brought by argument to assent. You are convinced of things to be real. You think "this is it"

So, where do these things, these little personality components come from? Where do beliefs come from?

We seem to be born with fear of falling and fear of loud noises. All other boundary conditions seem to be learned, and most learning happens before you turn 6.

By the time you’re 6 most limiting beliefs are set.

You may see parents argue about time, money, space and believe "scarcity is normal"

You may see person screaming the loudest winning and believe "anger gets results"

You get my drift. This is where beliefs come from.

They are mental constructs. They are goal-directed, and therefore useful as long as the goals are still desired.

Imagine the goal was to become smarter and have a fruitful conversation (or to experience half-hour thunderous orgasms...hey, I'm just sayin:)

What if we were to imagine we can remove beliefs, change them, or add new ones as an act of will?

What if beliefs are temporary, arbitrary ways of seeing the world? Merely a temporary, arbitrary way of treating something as though it was true or a fact.

What if beliefs were NOT a part of your identity? Better yet, what if you needn’t to define identity at all to examine and manipulate beliefs?

I believe Paul means to encourage us experimenting with this Alternative, Dissociated Belief.

Let’s call this ADbelief.

Let’s leave out judgments whether it is good/bad, familiar/unfamiliar me/not me, and follow the path.

Now, if ADbelief is a temporary, arbitrary useful assertion, then what is ADconviction? =one of these arbitrary assertions that is held at a level BELOW conscious examination.

So, if we were to imagine having thunderously orgasmic AND fruitful conversations, then it may involve Dropping Goal-directed Belief/Conviction pairs and Adopting ADgoal-directed ADbelief/ADconviction pairs. (you can imagine Goal-ADgoal distinction might be: something you simultaneously don’t have and desire when you’re <6 v.s. Now).

If you were to do that, you may notice an effective approach would involve dissociation: 1.Examine what Belief/Conviction pairs get you (each gets you something), and whether you still need/deserve that

2.Harvest ADgoals, adopt matching ADbeliefs/ADconvictions

3.Skip countless ritualistic elements, go directly to the effect

Skipping rituals requires generating stimulus in a state where your brain mistakes it as direct sensory input.

Generating such stimulus requires practicing dissociation: stepping back from the reality that is happening by setting aside the sheer mass of sensory input coming in, right now.

You may have experienced this when you travel alone to a place where most things you know and believe to be true are false (for westerners, asia or middle east would do).

Recall an experience where there is nothing else to relate to, except that which you brought yourself. Virtually all the "identity" baggage you carry with yourself is not there. Anything that you bring is there because YOU chose to carry along.

Aren’t you smarter in that place?

Hmmmm...just a thought:) Cheers.

Ammo

P.S.1: I’m seeking co-founders or to join a start-up. I can perform or otherwise get done all none-coding tasks with a flair: fund/find money, distill PrematureDesignChoice-free stories from market, write pseudo code, design attractive simple UI/UX, test, schmooze, influence, attract partners, sell, close deals etc.

I PREFER consumer-facing technologies that extend upon an unexpected success (Let’s generalize Netflix challenge) or unexpected failure with the demographic wind in the sail (Yes, I’m talking baby boomers: never before the 50+age cohort dominated US discretional spending. Think about it: very soon $4 of $10 will be spent by a Boomer and it will last 10+ years).

You must be an honorable person(s) of great taste, with a deep respect for reality and healthy amount of skepticism towards the impossible (I will show you things that you thought were ABSOLUTELY impossible).

It would also help if you smell nice, enjoy good red wine and simple delicious food.

P.S.2: If you read this far thinking "this makes sense" I feel we should talk:)

P.S.3: Yes Paul, I'd LOVE to:)

"hacker"

I've been very interested in this essay and the thread on defiance as a survival mechanism.

I've reached an "all code is data moment" though on the 'ideology' thing. If we dedicate ourselves to task then in order to do a good job of it we often need to buy into it with identity. For cleaning the dishes we wouldn't, but for designing something new we definitely do. There are controversial value judgements all over the place, and you often have to build on decision mechanisms that are a hell of a lot more vague than scientific conclusions when you do it. Hence, you are invested an ideology, both in terms of approach and belief.

Two things get you into real trouble. One is to stake a lot on something tenuous. If you have a design pattern idea that is very tenous, and then invest in building a system on top of it, you're probably in trouble. Been there, and i got prickly at suggestions that my base was not all that solid.

The other problem is when you have a belief system that is getting driven from somewhere else. Politics is the nasty one because you're forced to subscribe and it's about the group. Though I personally believe that strict property law is sacred, that most taxation is stealing and that public education is a poor model, the only options on offer are those that accept that and so I have to pick one. What's worse still is that politics is a zero sum game. When your solution wins, my bad compromise loses. It hurts a lot more if you openly share your faith that your chosen pick is a good one.

The political systems that are most notorious for hijacking casual conversations are those that are based on the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in society, because the stakes are a lot higher for people in that perspective.

Politics can be made worse by some vote electoral decision systems. One bad design is to base it on a winner takes all rule with no preferences. This can be made worse still with a gerrymander electorate. But - at least that ensures you get catch-all parties. Worse still is to give everyone a piece of the pie like the Israeli or old Italian system. In those systems every lobby group has its own political presence, there's less reason to govern for the all rather than your group, and this sets the stage for coruption and a perpetually unstable executive. Vague idea: a political system with a fixed 'kernel' but an arbitrary number of representatives who would be self-funded by bits of the community.

Religion is less of a problem than politics. You can have a conversation with someone about the ancestry of your different religions and respect their position openly and inside even if you do spare a moment later to have a private chuckle at the prospect of their eternity in the fiery pit. Hey - it's their funeral. Some cultures try to turn religion into politics: old testament stories that say that God punished a town because its people were bad, or that certain land must be reclaimed for the one true faith, or network marketing rules.

The problems are far less in the geek world and they decline as time goes on and tools get better making the compromises less. I suspect that normal people got more upset about mac-windows ten years ago than now, and that they get more upset now than than hackers, because they're victims of the compromises whereas experienced developers don't give a damn what platform they're on so long as they can get a shell and a compiler.

Although... everyone needs libraries...

Something that would be useful: tips on forming a world view with minimal reliance on external belief.

Identity is not the problem. And identity is always strong, and has to be strong to be able to achieve great things.

We are all very vulnerable when it comes to things that are rooted deeply in our own live (read: soul). So we behave quite aggressively when someone touches these things -- especially when we have been hurt there (and who hasn't been hurt in our violent times?).

If anybody is telling me that I should keep something small, and this thing is positive by its nature (like identity), then I already know that it's wrong from the beginning, and that the real problem hasn't been discovered yet.

So, keep searching!

I think identity requires both the internalization of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth. Paul's argument is that you should not incorporate unimportant beliefs into your identity. I suspect the "strength" of a person's identity is either unrelated to its size in these terms, or possibly even inversely related - that is, the more peripheral beliefs you have incorporated into your identity the more diffuse and weaker it is.

What about the practicality of holding strong beliefs? Is it not thebest way for you to achieve something to be imbued of the "true spirit" of that thing. Even if it is "wrong".

Nietzsche talked about a pessimism of strengh related with the Will to Power where he says that holding something true is important to achieve a certain purpose. He distinguished that from the pessimism of weakness where beliefs are hold not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.

Having strong convictions is important, because it focus all your being in achieving this purpose that you've created for yourself.

I would rather phrase the main idea in Mr. Graham's essay not as

"keep your identity small."

but rather

"keep your identity flexible."

What you believe today might not be what you'll need to believe in order to reach a certain goal in the future.

Yes it's a form of relativism, and it requires a lot of self discipline to avoid falling in to a kind of "it's no use", pessimistic stance, that nothing really matters. It means holding something true, even if you know it isn't true. Just make it so. Because that's the efficient and practical thing to do.

No matter how small you try to make it, it's always there. If you try to make it smaller you'll just push part of it below your conscious perception. Then it's a big freaking iceberg destroying things and you don't even know.

Better to disengage your identity. Use your imagination to adopt other people's identities. Experience and consider things from within those identities.

Everything is politics, religion is politics, javascript is politics. Anything where disagreement is possible incurs politics. This is why javascript discussions descend into religious debates and also why the premise and conclusions behind your entire essay is garbage.

What is common in religion and politics - the possibility to blame someone else for your own condition. And, as you said, everyone is an expert!

That exists in science and pretty much everything else too. For example, look at how obesity has been labelled an "epidemic," implying it is a disease and not something people have control over.

hmmmmmmm

Not weird that it has more than 200 comments!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com