TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Keep your Identity Small (2009)

254 点作者 hvo大约 7 年前

38 条评论

tendicular大约 7 年前
I think when he talks about &quot;identity&quot; what he really means is unquestioning allegiances, preventing purely merit-based objective discussions on some issues. IOW when you have an angle in it, when you&#x27;re in a discussion not to get to the truth of the matter, but to achieve certain goals you have, to influence others, to push them in a direction that is favorable to you (without being conscious of it, otherwise you&#x27;re just a dishonest manipulator, and this is not about that).<p>Just wanted to be more precise about what this &quot;identity&quot; thing really means. I think though that you <i>can</i> have a &quot;wider identity&quot; <i>and</i> have &quot;fruitful&quot; i.e. truth-seeking merit-based discussions at the same time; you just have to be conscious - and honest - about it. So I&#x27;d dispute his implied drive that you mustn&#x27;t &quot;be&quot; something (Communist, Christian, etc.). What is really called for is being cognizant and honest.<p>Taking being Communist as an example, this would mean that you&#x27;re playing for the ultimate goal, not for the advancement of your party over others no matter what. Putting ideals over politicking.<p>Of course the core ideals is a much harder core. These core ideals are the true core of your being, there&#x27;s no easy arguing about changing <i>them</i>.<p>I apologize if this all is trite and cliche.
评论 #16456019 未加载
评论 #16455384 未加载
评论 #16455155 未加载
adjkant大约 7 年前
&gt; 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?<p>Javascript has aged up I think!
评论 #16454774 未加载
评论 #16455915 未加载
评论 #16456350 未加载
评论 #16455395 未加载
barrkel大约 7 年前
I like to try on identities a bit like trying on clothes. If someone is making decisions based on identity, you&#x27;ll find it hard to understand them, or empathize with their position if you can&#x27;t imagine what their outlook is like. It&#x27;s especially troubling if you think of people with different perspectives as being &quot;other&quot;, alien in some way.<p>Most identities have positive things to commend them, as well as negatives. Frequently a set of identities mesh together into a consistent narrative of the world, such that you can&#x27;t change people&#x27;s mind on a single issue unless you can flip them on a whole bunch of related issues, or create a better narrative. These narratives are often backed by both ignorance and logical fallacies that cause evidence to be misinterpreted.<p>I think if you don&#x27;t try out other identities, other world views, you&#x27;re liable to get stuck in an identity by default, and just not be aware of how biased your perspective is.
评论 #16456807 未加载
js2大约 7 年前
I’m reminded of “Strong Opinons, Weakly Held”:<p><i>I’ve been pretty obsessed about the difference between smart people and wise people for years. I tried to write a book called “The Attitude of Wisdom” a couple times. And the virtues of wise people – those who have the courage to act on their knowledge, but the humility to doubt what they know – is one of the main themes in Hard Facts. We show how leaders including Xerox’s Ann Mulcahy, Intel’s Any Grove, Harrah’s Gary Loveman, and IDEO’s David Kelley turn this attitude into organizational action. Perhaps the best description I’ve ever seen of how wise people act comes from the amazing folks at Palo Alto’s Institute for the Future. A couple years ago, I was talking the Institute’s Bob Johansen about wisdom, and he explained that – to deal with an uncertain future and still move forward – they advise people to have “strong opinions, which are weakly held.” They&#x27;ve been giving this advice for years, and I understand that it was first developed by Instituite Director Paul Saffo. Bob explained that weak opinions are problematic because people aren’t inspired to develop the best arguments possible for them, or to put forth the energy required to test them. Bob explained that it was just as important, however, to not be too attached to what you believe because, otherwise, it undermines your ability to “see” and “hear” evidence that clashes with your opinions. This is what psychologists sometimes call the problem of “confirmation bias.”</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bobsutton.typepad.com&#x2F;my_weblog&#x2F;2006&#x2F;07&#x2F;strong_opinions.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bobsutton.typepad.com&#x2F;my_weblog&#x2F;2006&#x2F;07&#x2F;strong_opinio...</a>
评论 #16455726 未加载
dorkwood大约 7 年前
I&#x27;d argue for the opposite: growing your identity beyond a single thing. If someone sees themselves as a waiter and nothing else, they&#x27;re more likely to feel injured by someone saying that a waiter is a dead-end job, because the majority of their identity just took a heavy blow. But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and a reader, they&#x27;ll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.
评论 #16456271 未加载
评论 #16461627 未加载
评论 #16456644 未加载
stared大约 7 年前
I like capturing this topic by making a distinction between nouns vs adjectives.<p>E.g. if someone is, say, &quot;I am Polish&quot; (or: &quot;capitalist&quot;, &quot;feminist&quot;, &quot;Catholic&quot;, &quot;socialist&quot;, &quot;atheist&quot;, &quot;gay&quot; etc) and treats it an adjective describing their beliefs, tastes, etc it is up to an exploration and discussions (when evolution is accepted and does no harm to one&#x27;s self-esteem). If someone else uses it to declare their identity, it makes it easy to make an entrenched view, with &quot;us vs them&quot;, and in which change endangers one position (or, well, identity).
gcheong大约 7 年前
Also related - the &quot;backfire effect&quot; - where challenging a person&#x27;s core beliefs only entrenches them further. Nicely explained and illustrated here by The Oatmeal: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;theoatmeal.com&#x2F;comics&#x2F;believe" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;theoatmeal.com&#x2F;comics&#x2F;believe</a>
spiffage大约 7 年前
I loved this essay when it came out, and I still think it&#x27;s pretty great. But I&#x27;m forced to acknowledge that a big reason I was on board with it is that the identities I was given to choose from when I was young didn&#x27;t appeal to me.<p>And I&#x27;m forced to acknowledge that for most people, their identities do <i>work</i> and make them happy in ways I can only sort-of understand. And maybe they lower our society&#x27;s level of epistemic virtue, but people may never let them go, and it&#x27;s not obvious that we ought to try to convince them to beyond a certain point.<p>I like balioc&#x27;s perspective here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;balioc.wordpress.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;15&#x2F;responsa&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;balioc.wordpress.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;03&#x2F;15&#x2F;responsa&#x2F;</a>. The whole thing is good, but he responds to PG&#x27;s essay specifically with:<p>&quot;I could answer by saying that, in many circumstances, identity really is necessary for hedonic well-being. [...] the world isn’t set up to provide us with constant sources of utility, so it’s much better to have a constantly-accessible utility generator inside yourself, even if that generator requires some finicky maintenance.&quot;
JoshMnem大约 7 年前
That&#x27;s basically the reason why I&#x27;ve never joined any political party or any other group (as an identity). Labels restrict thinking, and you can get pulled into knee-jerk reactions even if you are conscious of how that works.<p>Changing identity has a high cost for the organism (social connections, access to institutions, cognitive dissonance, existential crisis), which is why I think some people have those knee-jerk reactions. It&#x27;s evolution at work.
mirimir大约 7 年前
I do my best to avoid <i>believing</i> in anything. That is, I have working hypotheses, more or less well-tested, but always open to revision based on new data. I do have principles and values that are essentially freely chosen. But even those are subject to revision. I strive for what works.<p>That approach rather precludes religion. Because most religions are explicitly untestable.
评论 #16457273 未加载
madacoo大约 7 年前
I wonder if it would be sufficient to restrict nouns that you use to assert your identity to those which can be &#x27;verbified&#x27;: I am a juggler because I juggle; I am a programmer because I program; I am a writer because I write.<p>Those particular nouns seem to be inherently less likely to cause partisan behaviour that nouns that can&#x27;t be as easily &#x27;verbified&#x27;: I am British because I Brit; I am not Christian because I don&#x27;t Christ.<p>I suppose a simpler way of saying this would be to restrict your sense of identity to things you do over things you believe. Although I&#x27;m not at all certain that this would actually serve to avoid the kind of &#x27;dumbness&#x27; the author describes.
评论 #16456578 未加载
stareatgoats大约 7 年前
Good advice, albeit hard to accomplish. Identity is a core part of political party formation, at least in Europe (together with self-interest and ideology). No doubt it has an important role in marketing as well. I don&#x27;t see these forces giving up on pulling the identity lever any time soon, it seems to gain importance if anything.<p>However, perceived identity coupled with a sense of oppression, exceptionalism and&#x2F;or fear of extinction is what always gets us in trouble (i.e. war), so there are a number of good reasons to keep tight reins on identity.
评论 #16456401 未加载
评论 #16455351 未加载
评论 #16455524 未加载
ardualabs大约 7 年前
I don&#x27;t know if I can quite express how wonderful it was to read this. I&#x27;m not so naive as to believe it&#x27;s not because it lines up with my notions, and as said in the article (or implied) there&#x27;s no sense in talking past your expertise. All I can say is that the Dunning-Kruger (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect</a>) seems to be at play in most online discourse, and that certain subjects, especially in an environment of entitlement (i.e. everybody&#x27;s opinion is &quot;valid&quot; - whatever that means).
lamename大约 7 年前
Great points, echoes this:<p>&quot;The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions. They&#x27;re objects in a box you carry with you, and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they&#x27;re no good. If you think that the opinions in the box are &#x27;who you are&#x27;, then you&#x27;ll cling to them despite evidence to the contrary.<p>Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind.&quot;<p>from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;tlsU_YT9n_g?t=1m6s" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;tlsU_YT9n_g?t=1m6s</a>
haberman大约 7 年前
One major way that identity corrupts arguments is when people ignore or excuse the flaws and weaknesses their position. When you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself and your allies, it destroys the trust that is essential to a fruitful exchange of ideas.<p>So &quot;not responding from identity&quot; requires more than just being even-keeled and emotionally detached from the argument. It requires acknowledging the weaknesses in your position with the same receptiveness as you see flaws in others.
评论 #16455603 未加载
bernardino大约 7 年前
&gt; The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.<p>I argue the more labels you have for not only yourself <i>but</i> for the world you experience, the dumber they make you.
评论 #16455973 未加载
bencollier49大约 7 年前
As a counterpoint, it&#x27;s entirely possible that avoiding identifying with anything also cuts off a massive range of psychological states, meaning that you may not become as empathic as other people, and thus have fewer ideas, or at least ideas of a different sort.<p>The ultimate trick would be to identify with <i>everything</i>. Hopefully a brain-computer interface might make that sort of experience possible in the future.
hmwhy大约 7 年前
I was immediately reminded of a wiki page about enlightenment (Immanuel Kant) [0] after reading through the essay, which may an interesting additional reading to some. The English translation of the essay that the wiki page is based on can be found here [1].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Answering_the_Question:_What_is_Enlightenment%3F" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Answering_the_Question:_What_i...</a><p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.columbia.edu&#x2F;acis&#x2F;ets&#x2F;CCREAD&#x2F;etscc&#x2F;kant.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.columbia.edu&#x2F;acis&#x2F;ets&#x2F;CCREAD&#x2F;etscc&#x2F;kant.html</a>
combatentropy大约 7 年前
I had thought politics and religion were controversial because they have to do with how you run your life. For example, if I own guns, and you propose banning them, then I imagine someone coming and taking my guns, and I can get mad.
meganibla大约 7 年前
A useful Corollary being that identity politics, in another words convincing people to identify with increasingly smaller and more specific groups, and getting them to fight amongst themselves, in other words trying to increase their identities to include some more things, is the perfect way to keep people from thinking clearly about real issues. A useful way to keep the population on the back foot in a democracy keep them fighting about emotive issues rather than thinking clearly about substantial one, and divide the market into small sections to make it easier to direct messaging to appeal for votes.
jameslk大约 7 年前
Politics are interesting. Perhaps politicking wouldn&#x27;t be necessary if we could determine with accuracy the results of policies before implementing them. For example, maybe this could be done by complex computer simulation in the future. Furthermore, policy might be synthesized by the same processes if it can be simulated.<p>Which then raises another interesting point: would democracy be less efficient and necessary if we could determine optimal policy for society before implementing it? Would we just vote on the desires of society rather than policies to get us there?
评论 #16457241 未加载
评论 #16457780 未加载
philipps大约 7 年前
I agree that tying one’s convictions to identity and arguing on the basis of identity makes cooperation among individuals with different identities harder. However, I find the suggestion to reduce one’s identity problematic. First, identity plays an important role in developing a sense of community and aides in-group cooperation. And second, it’s worth keeping in mind that it’s easy to underestimate the attachment to identity when one’s own identity happens to be widely-accepted and&#x2F;or relatively easy to discard.
jxub大约 7 年前
When in the history has this &quot;boxing&quot; of oneself started?<p>Maybe other cultures don&#x27;t surround the consciusness with so much fluff, like &quot;I&#x27;m a valedictorian from the Yale class of 2010 and I work at Goldman and play polo&quot;. Or &quot;I&#x27;m a Lenin follower and everyone should bow to international marxism&quot;.<p>I think eg. the Chinese take on this is more about the family or something. Any pointers?
评论 #16456153 未加载
platz大约 7 年前
How can you advocate for your own self-interest politically, if it is not connected to your identity?<p>How would you even decide what policies you want?<p>PG makes it seem like we could simply do politics by creating some ultimate utilitarian function. But then how do you decide what it counts as good?<p>In fact, there is no separating identity from politics, no matter how you try to obfuscate it.
评论 #16459104 未加载
评论 #16456466 未加载
mapcars大约 7 年前
Sadhguru a yogi, mystic, and visionary explains the problem of identity in a very profound way (for example in this google talks video <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM</a>) he says our identity should be the whole universe.
评论 #16455415 未加载
mrleiter大约 7 年前
That&#x27;s why when you argue with someone about one of these topics and you try to prove a certain point that does not fit ther line of thinking, you are effectively thwarting their identity. In their exes you make them less of a person. You take away a part of their identity. Nobody wants that.
olfox大约 7 年前
I make a distinction between positive&#x2F;inclusive or negative&#x2F;exclusive identity. While I certainly condone the statement &quot;I&#x27;m not a murderer&quot;, I try to define myself in terms like &quot;I value life&quot;. This gets tougher when certain positive constructs come with a lot of negative connotations. We can try to reclaim those words, emphasize that being a nerd is about devouring information and not about despising social contact, but sometimes its a lost cause and all we can do is come up with a new word. Another way of thinking of it is to be the union of identities, not the intersection. This heuristic can fail in many ways, but it&#x27;s served me well so far.
eevilspock大约 7 年前
This is all very convenient if you happen to be of the dominant identity. Even if you don&#x27;t consciously associate yourself with it, you benefit from it.<p>For those not of the dominant identity, to &quot;not even to consider yourself an x&quot; is a problem if you are an x and the problem you want to address is systemic unfairness toward x.<p>Imagine yourself a slave in 1850 being advised to not consider yourself a slave, or black, because you&#x27;d avoid useless discussions.<p>Imagine yourself a woman today being advised by HR to not consider yourself a woman or your experiences as one when discussing workplace discrimination or harassment.<p>Imagine yourself a gay man being advised to forget you are one when discussing laws restricting gay marriage.<p>You get the picture.
评论 #16456313 未加载
the_gipsy大约 7 年前
I think this is similar to “liking” vs “doing” something, in terms of defining yourself.<p>Anybody can like something, and build an identity based on taste and opinions. It requires no skill. But <i>doing</i> something is a much deeper way of defining yourself.
rgun大约 7 年前
The book <i>The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion</i> by <i>Jonathan Haidt</i> explores similar concepts.<p>It is an extremely interesting book on moral psychology. (YC 2017 Summer Reading List)
sergeyfilippov大约 7 年前
&gt; Politics, like religion, is a topic where there&#x27;s no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.<p>I like how in this context it sounds obviously flawed, and yet, funny enough, we still have no better political system than for everyone to express their opinion and then count them — no expertise required
Torai大约 7 年前
<i>Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant</i><p>I&#x27;m fairly intolerant Paul, with the things I deem wrong.<p>And first thing is, why the fuck are listening to you about Politics and Religion. What is your experience on those area so you can enlighten us. In which forums (nowadays they are called chat groups) have you debated hard, holding your ground. And how many people have you convinced on 1 vs 1 ideological battles.<p>I&#x27;m tired of false prophets. And I get this Paul guy is someone related to the world of software. But someone should steal him the mic when he starts talking about topics he is not experienced enough.<p>People need to keep their Identity BIG. But they need to realize about the bad things in their cultural heritage, keeping only the good things and erasing or transforming the bad ones. It&#x27;s simple.<p>But Paul, if you don&#x27;t know about how to convince people that is opposing your views then please don&#x27;t try to make magic 1 liner recipes for everyone. Cause people is dumb, and many of them will blindly follow your command without fully understanding it. The same thing as with Agile methodology and other abstractions (10 commandments for example) that come from many years expertise of one guy with much wisdom, but that at the end, people blindly follow without making them think or test it to see if it&#x27;s right.<p>Identity=Ego<p>And here we have 2009 Paul Graham, with an ego as big as it gets, telling other people not to have an strong ego. So he is denying others the tool that makes individuals be certain about their ideas and possibilities. He is denying others their right to grow.
dreamfactored大约 7 年前
The trouble here is that the more you know about something, the more it must necessarily form part of your identity. I could otherwise dispense the most dispassionate (and apparently therefore excellent) advice on topics ranging from Micronesian politics to string theory.
mathgenius大约 7 年前
Plenty of this going on right now in the world of cryptocurrency. And possibly for the same reason: who is to say what coin is good (will succeed) or not?
drraid0大约 7 年前
I don&#x27;t recall how it was back in 2009, but you definitely don&#x27;t need to be a JavaScript expert to have passionately useless opinions about it.
trevyn大约 7 年前
I came to a similar conclusion recently, and I believe that evolutionarily, the concept of identity originates from the biological drive to protect one&#x27;s physical body. One then voluntarily expands or contracts one&#x27;s sense of identity from there.<p>So I did some mental experiments. Temporarily reducing my identity to not include my physical body, bit by bit.<p>Then, what am I?<p>My consciousness.<p>What if I reduce it further?<p>I lose consciousness.<p>(But I get it back after I wake up.)<p>What if I try to lose the sense of identity while still remaining aware?<p>It wraps around and I become the universe. Am one with the universe.<p>It was an interesting journey.
adnam大约 7 年前
.
评论 #16455257 未加载
评论 #16455320 未加载
评论 #16455529 未加载
评论 #16455447 未加载
评论 #16455366 未加载
评论 #16455218 未加载
评论 #16455477 未加载
joshuaheard大约 7 年前
Interesting idea. If your political ideology is part of your identity like race or gender, should it become a protected class for anti-discrimination protection?