Maybe identity is the root of all evil?

Hear me out: back in the day founding a company wasn't an identity, it was just an action, a verb. Stuff started going sideways when people started thinking of themselves as "founders". Suddenly the product wasn't the top priority anymore, instead it was second to defending their identity as a "founder". Seemingly stupid decisions followed, but seen from the perspective of a CEO who wants nothing more than to be a founder, they start to make sense.

We see something similar in politics, I think. Note that it doesn't apply to everyone, but it's interesting to compare people who are engaged in a social justice struggle, Vs people who identify as "activist". The latter will be very prone to doing things that are counter-productive to their started cause, because they don't really care about any cause, they're just defending their identity as activist.

I reckon the same idea holds elsewhere as well.

(Disclaimer: I'm not sure how common that last thing is in the US, but where I live, it definitely happens a fair bit. But even here it does not apply to everyone, it's just a very loud minority)

Second disclaimer: I use the word identity in a very specific way in this comment. It is not to be confused with other uses of the same word, for example in the phrase "gender identity". That is a completely different kind of identity and is completely orthogonal and irrelevant to what I'm trying to express in this comment

▲

DanielHB 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't agree with Paul Graham on everything but he nailed this argument:

https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

> If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

Of course one can't not have any identity whatsoever, afterall ethics is a type of identity and no one should in their right frame of mind contest basic things like human rights.

▲

eschatology 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As with sibling comment, it's my first time reading this, it's a great read, and author really managed to write down into words some things I have vaguely thought about before.

One thing I notice, which may be the worst part of it, although I realize it might be bit too pessimistic: It doesn't matter whether A identifies with X — if B thinks A identifies with X, the discussion still breaks down and it becomes difficult to have a fruitful argument. In other words, one party can shut down and degenerate a discussion for both (or many).

It makes me think once again about the adage: Communication is a two-way street; can't have communication otherwise.

	▲	DanielHB 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Applying the principles of keeping your identity small also makes you more open to ideas from other people. This kind of self-reflection about identity is also very important for your own internal communication with yourself.

▲

amarant 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That was a great read! Thanks for linking it! Paul certainly has a way with words that I simply don't, and he expresses the same idea I had, only much more clearly.

I wonder if being "engaged by identity" can be automatically detected somehow? Would be a cool experiment to build a automatic moderator that just hides identity based responses.

Also makes me wonder if there's a reliable way to detect it in yourself? If I could reliably identify when my identity is engaged, that would seem to be the first step towards disengaging it.

Or put differently, i would assume I carry labels unconsciously, in order to clear my cupboard I must find what's in it.

	▲	dooglius 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I can't find it now, but I distinctly remember dang talking about his moderation philosophy being based on what he's read about the activation of the parasympathetic nervous system
	▲	DanielHB 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I am surprised you haven't read it before, because when I read your comment I immediately remembered that essay haha. For conscious bias a good test is if being exposed to new facts prevent you from changing your opinion on something. For example, imagine I was a very big believer of full-blown libertarianism and I was exposed to very concrete evidence that say, for example, government run healthcare is both more efficient and cheaper than private healthcare[1]. Would I still be full-blown libertarian and try to put holes on the data or would I embrace that libertarianism doesn't bring good outcomes in healthcare[2]? Unconscious bias is much harder though, in fact libertarians tend to be very much fueled by ideology than facts. One could say that unconscious bias is fundamentally the same thing as ideology. Another example, like I mentioned before I am very much a pro human rights ideologist. So I am inherently against some things like eugenics, even though one could provide data to me saying that eugenics would lead to "better" outcomes in society I would still be against it on principle. [1]: Personally I sympathize with most libertarian views, but I don't consider myself a libertarian. I don't think a full private healthcare system is good for example. And this is the core issue the essay brings out, being a libertarian is assuming an identity and it closes you off to new ideas. [2]: it is very hard to have absolute evidence to anything, but one must be willing to look over their own pre-existing world view when analyzing information available. A certain level of suspicion of information is warranted, but if you can't get past that, your world view is essentially ideology.

▲

holistio 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Words matter. They’re not only founders. They’re founders who generate money and create jobs.

▲

mablopoule 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with your take, most of it boils down to ego, I believe.

▲

goodpoint 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not at all, the issue is that money and glamour attracted techbros.