I think when he talks about "identity" 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'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're just a dishonest manipulator, and this is not about that).
Just wanted to be more precise about what this "identity" thing really means. I think though that you can have a "wider identity" and have "fruitful" i.e. truth-seeking merit-based discussions at the same time; you just have to be conscious - and honest - about it. So I'd dispute his implied drive that you mustn't "be" something (Communist, Christian, etc.). What is really called for is being cognizant and honest.
Taking being Communist as an example, this would mean that you're playing for the ultimate goal, not for the advancement of your party over others no matter what. Putting ideals over politicking.
Of course the core ideals is a much harder core. These core ideals are the true core of your being, there's no easy arguing about changing them.
I always find it interesting how some of the beliefs that form the core of our identity are actually ones we have investigated least rigorously (eg. political affiliation, religious denomination, etc.). We are much more likely to dissect and reject new ideas that do not benefit from this 'first-mover advantage' than question the ones with which we were endowed.
When someone self-identifies as a member of profession A, there are relatively quick ways of communicating their level of expertise, e.g. education, place of employment, job title, years of experience.
When someone self-identifies as a believer in religion X or political label Y, it is less easy to characterize their experience in the practice (usually harder than knowledge) of the community's exoteric and esoteric principles.
> 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?
This is an online forum, and despite the mention of religion and Javascript it hasn't yet degenerated into an argument.
It seems the rule has exceptions.
I like to try on identities a bit like trying on clothes. If someone is making decisions based on identity, you'll find it hard to understand them, or empathize with their position if you can't imagine what their outlook is like. It's especially troubling if you think of people with different perspectives as being "other", alien in some way.
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't change people'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.
I think if you don't try out other identities, other world views, you're liable to get stuck in an identity by default, and just not be aware of how biased your perspective is.
This reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's "Reality Tunnel" experiments. If you've not read him, I'd highly recommend his work - especially "Prometheus Rising".
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'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've always been troubled by this because it seems to excuse poor behaviour i.e.
- "strong opinion" - the opinion is asserted aggressively and without tact
- "weakly held" - there is little justification for the opinion and it will be abandoned under pressure and on a whim
Sutton seems to want Strong to mean something about "attracting energy" as if Strong means "intentionally provocative" but it really isn't clear to me. I prefer "reasoned opinions presented thoughtfully" but then I'm British so... eh.
I'd argue for the opposite: growing your identity beyond a single thing. If someone sees themselves as a waiter and nothing else, they'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'll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.
> But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and a reader, they'll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.
I think what you see in reality (at least these days) is that if ANY of the downsides to any of the identities are pointed out, you'll see people rush to have to defend it.
Also, I believe attaching your identity to being a waiter would be doing the opposite of what PG is suggesting here in the first place.
David Berreby's book "Us and Them: The Science of Identity"[1] pretty much agrees with you, and makes the case that the less rich/diverse someone's identity is (in essence: the more "single-issue" they are), the more likely they are to have a narrow view of it and to cling to it regardless of its validity.
His conclusion is that an individual should cultivate multiple identities, so that each one is enriched by the others and becomes more nuanced in the process.
I like capturing this topic by making a distinction between nouns vs adjectives.
E.g. if someone is, say, "I am Polish" (or: "capitalist", "feminist", "Catholic", "socialist", "atheist", "gay" 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's self-esteem). If someone else uses it to declare their identity, it makes it easy to make an entrenched view, with "us vs them", and in which change endangers one position (or, well, identity).
Also related - the "backfire effect" - where challenging a person's core beliefs only entrenches them further. Nicely explained and illustrated here by The Oatmeal: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
I loved this essay when it came out, and I still think it's pretty great. But I'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't appeal to me.
And I'm forced to acknowledge that for most people, their identities do work and make them happy in ways I can only sort-of understand. And maybe they lower our society's level of epistemic virtue, but people may never let them go, and it's not obvious that we ought to try to convince them to beyond a certain point.
"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."
That's basically the reason why I'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.
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's evolution at work.
I do my best to avoid believing 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.
That approach rather precludes religion. Because most religions are explicitly untestable.
I think the problem is that it's logistically impossible to empirically test all your working hypotheses. For example, my working hypothesis is that Darwinian evolution is a true theory about the development of life on this planet. But as I'm not a biologist, I don't really have the skills to empirically test my hypothesis; I just trust that other people have done this and are doing a good job. Similarly, I believe reports that there are as many as 10^22 stars in the universe, but I won't test that either because I'm not an astronomer and I generally trust astronomers...
In other words, I think there is an intermediate category that deserves attention:
1) Beliefs that you refuse to revise
2) Beliefs that you could revise in theory but probably never will in practice (for lack of expertise, resources, etc)
3) Beliefs that you actively try to develop
We are limited in our beliefs by our material capacities for inquiry, sadly.
I wonder if it would be sufficient to restrict nouns that you use to assert your identity to those which can be 'verbified': I am a juggler because I juggle; I am a programmer because I program; I am a writer because I write.
Those particular nouns seem to be inherently less likely to cause partisan behaviour that nouns that can't be as easily 'verbified': I am British because I Brit; I am not Christian because I don't Christ.
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'm not at all certain that this would actually serve to avoid the kind of 'dumbness' the author describes.
...I think identity in this context is largely the "I am a" form.
I'm a giggler is identity. I juggle, or even I am the juggler is not the same sort of a mark of Identity. So I'd say the advice is is avoid (or at.least recognize and minimize)) thinking in the "I am a" frame.
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't see these forces giving up on pulling the identity lever any time soon, it seems to gain importance if anything.
However, perceived identity coupled with a sense of oppression, exceptionalism and/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.
With a weak identity you can just hop over to the winning side. I think a lot of polemic attacks over identity aren't aimed so much at the opposition, but at weak supporters to stop them defecting.
I don't know if I can quite express how wonderful it was to read this. I'm not so naive as to believe it's not because it lines up with my notions, and as said in the article (or implied) there's no sense in talking past your expertise. All I can say is that the Dunning-Kruger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) seems to be at play in most online discourse, and that certain subjects, especially in an environment of entitlement (i.e. everybody's opinion is "valid" - whatever that means).
"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions. They're objects in a box you carry with you, and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they're no good.
If you think that the opinions in the box are 'who you are', then you'll cling to them despite evidence to the contrary.
Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind."
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.
So "not responding from identity" 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.
I’ve found that taking some time away from the argument can help all parties involved come to terms with what you’re describing. Its can be difficult to do, and some time away from the scrum gives you a chance to replay the argument in your mind without having to defend your position.
As a counterpoint, it'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.
The ultimate trick would be to identify with everything. Hopefully a brain-computer interface might make that sort of experience possible in the future.
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].
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.
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.
[+] [-] tendicular|8 years ago|reply
Just wanted to be more precise about what this "identity" thing really means. I think though that you can have a "wider identity" and have "fruitful" i.e. truth-seeking merit-based discussions at the same time; you just have to be conscious - and honest - about it. So I'd dispute his implied drive that you mustn't "be" something (Communist, Christian, etc.). What is really called for is being cognizant and honest.
Taking being Communist as an example, this would mean that you're playing for the ultimate goal, not for the advancement of your party over others no matter what. Putting ideals over politicking.
Of course the core ideals is a much harder core. These core ideals are the true core of your being, there's no easy arguing about changing them.
I apologize if this all is trite and cliche.
[+] [-] alexpetralia|8 years ago|reply
I write about this somewhat here: https://alexpetralia.github.io/epistemology/2018/02/22/your-...
[+] [-] walterbell|8 years ago|reply
When someone self-identifies as a believer in religion X or political label Y, it is less easy to characterize their experience in the practice (usually harder than knowledge) of the community's exoteric and esoteric principles.
[+] [-] jxub|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adjkant|8 years ago|reply
Javascript has aged up I think!
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
Once being a JS programmer becomes a thing you are or aren't, people are arguing about themselves.
[+] [-] madez|8 years ago|reply
[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/324835/
[+] [-] incompatible|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seba_dos1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barrkel|8 years ago|reply
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't change people'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.
I think if you don't try out other identities, other world views, you're liable to get stuck in an identity by default, and just not be aware of how biased your perspective is.
[+] [-] ardualabs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|8 years ago|reply
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'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.”
http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinio...
[+] [-] duncanawoods|8 years ago|reply
- "strong opinion" - the opinion is asserted aggressively and without tact
- "weakly held" - there is little justification for the opinion and it will be abandoned under pressure and on a whim
Sutton seems to want Strong to mean something about "attracting energy" as if Strong means "intentionally provocative" but it really isn't clear to me. I prefer "reasoned opinions presented thoughtfully" but then I'm British so... eh.
[+] [-] dorkwood|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelrunyon|8 years ago|reply
I think what you see in reality (at least these days) is that if ANY of the downsides to any of the identities are pointed out, you'll see people rush to have to defend it.
Also, I believe attaching your identity to being a waiter would be doing the opposite of what PG is suggesting here in the first place.
[+] [-] Hasknewbie|8 years ago|reply
His conclusion is that an individual should cultivate multiple identities, so that each one is enriched by the others and becomes more nuanced in the process.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Us-Them-Identity-David-Berreby/dp/022...
[+] [-] philwelch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stared|8 years ago|reply
E.g. if someone is, say, "I am Polish" (or: "capitalist", "feminist", "Catholic", "socialist", "atheist", "gay" 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's self-esteem). If someone else uses it to declare their identity, it makes it easy to make an entrenched view, with "us vs them", and in which change endangers one position (or, well, identity).
[+] [-] gcheong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiffage|8 years ago|reply
And I'm forced to acknowledge that for most people, their identities do work and make them happy in ways I can only sort-of understand. And maybe they lower our society's level of epistemic virtue, but people may never let them go, and it's not obvious that we ought to try to convince them to beyond a certain point.
I like balioc's perspective here https://balioc.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/responsa/. The whole thing is good, but he responds to PG's essay specifically with:
"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."
[+] [-] JoshMnem|8 years ago|reply
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's evolution at work.
[+] [-] mirimir|8 years ago|reply
That approach rather precludes religion. Because most religions are explicitly untestable.
[+] [-] decasia|8 years ago|reply
In other words, I think there is an intermediate category that deserves attention:
1) Beliefs that you refuse to revise 2) Beliefs that you could revise in theory but probably never will in practice (for lack of expertise, resources, etc) 3) Beliefs that you actively try to develop
We are limited in our beliefs by our material capacities for inquiry, sadly.
[+] [-] madacoo|8 years ago|reply
Those particular nouns seem to be inherently less likely to cause partisan behaviour that nouns that can't be as easily 'verbified': I am British because I Brit; I am not Christian because I don't Christ.
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'm not at all certain that this would actually serve to avoid the kind of 'dumbness' the author describes.
[+] [-] dalbasal|8 years ago|reply
I'm a giggler is identity. I juggle, or even I am the juggler is not the same sort of a mark of Identity. So I'd say the advice is is avoid (or at.least recognize and minimize)) thinking in the "I am a" frame.
[+] [-] stareatgoats|8 years ago|reply
However, perceived identity coupled with a sense of oppression, exceptionalism and/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.
[+] [-] incompatible|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lamename|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 7dare|8 years ago|reply
Seems like the only reactions these fears cause are misguided and radical ones.
[+] [-] ardualabs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lamename|8 years ago|reply
"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions. They're objects in a box you carry with you, and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they're no good. If you think that the opinions in the box are 'who you are', then you'll cling to them despite evidence to the contrary.
Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind."
from https://youtu.be/tlsU_YT9n_g?t=1m6s
[+] [-] haberman|8 years ago|reply
So "not responding from identity" 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.
[+] [-] IntronExon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bernardino|8 years ago|reply
I argue the more labels you have for not only yourself but for the world you experience, the dumber they make you.
[+] [-] DonGateley|8 years ago|reply
I'm afraid I find your argument to be a defense of ignorance.
[+] [-] bencollier49|8 years ago|reply
The ultimate trick would be to identify with everything. Hopefully a brain-computer interface might make that sort of experience possible in the future.
[+] [-] hmwhy|8 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answering_the_Question:_What_i...
[1] http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
[+] [-] combatentropy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meganibla|8 years ago|reply