Thought-provoking essay by Taleb. Worth the read, IMHO, despite Taleb's usual confrontational style, which may put off some readers. These passages, in particu

Thought-provoking essay by Taleb. Worth the read, IMHO, despite Taleb's usual confrontational style, which may put off some readers. These passages, in particular, caught my eye: > ...the notion that religion determines attitude and culture fails historical logic. And trying to change the theologies makes absolutely no sense. You need to change the mentalities, and cultural norms — if you can. > The robust alternative, that people imitate the (contagious) mores of those of their group, tradditionally defined by religion, makes vastly more sense. People like to dress, act, even think in broad terms within the style of others members of their group, people they identify with — what we tend to loosely call “identity”. The same logic, I think, applies to groups in the US who self-identify as liberal or conservative. People in each group dress, act, and yes, even think in broad terms within the style of others members of their group. Trying to change either group's theology with reasoned arguments and proven facts would be... a fruitless exercise. This logic reminds me of Paul Graham's essay about keeping one's identity small ( http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html). Quoting from it: > I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan. > 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. > The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.