4 ms·

The sentence that strikes me as the essence of the essay: "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the ident

The sentence that strikes me as the essence of the essay: "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants." Is that true? I really don't think it is. I could definitely have a fruitful (as precise as that can be) conversation with a Christian about religion or a "proud Black man" about race in America. Or even learn a thing or two about programming from a lisp evangelist... I liked this essay at first, but when I read it more critically it doesn't hold up. It at first seemed to preach non-attachment. Now I feel like it's just an excuse for me to tune you out whenever I decide your identity has been engaged by the topic.

Lammy 5y ago
I guess I would ask a hypothetical-pg to define his idea of a "fruitful" discussion. I'll trust that he (and other VCs) would share my belief in the collective-objectivity of subjective human realities and aren't just having discussions on how to make as much money as possible :)
dragonwriter 5y ago
> "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants." > Is that true? I don't think so, but it approaches a truth. You can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any two or more of the participants in areas where they have fundamental and intractable conflict. But even this requires a very specific definition of “engage”. Its not just a matter of having overlap with content of the identity, but provoking a defensive, identity-based response. There are people who can converse around identity-related issues without their identity being engaged.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
I think the amount of truth in that statement is "it depends". I've found that having conversations about certain controversial topics is can be unproductive unless you're talking to someone you know fairly well, and both parties are willing to listen with an open mind. When someone you don't know well says something that goes against your idea of common sense, it's easy to dismiss them as an out-group idiot. When it's someone you've known for years, who you know to be thoughtful about their beliefs, it's harder to dismiss them out of hand. This is anecdotal, but I've also found that people who bring up those sorts of identity issues when you don't know them well aren't usually looking to engage with someone who disagrees. They're looking to see if you belong to the same tribe. If you do, it's an opportunity to bond.
lliamander 5y ago
The presence or absence of good faith in the person with whom you are engaged I think makes the biggest difference.
imgabe 5y ago
It depends on what you mean by "fruitful discussion". If you are willing to listen to a person expound on their identity, and accept uncritically whatever they say, then most people will happily talk your ear off about it. If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual, and discussions where one person believes they are being personally insulted by the other are rarely fruitful.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual I don't think it's healthy conversation to "question" what someone [you have just met] is saying in any circumstances. Questioning without having a developed background and context is a polite way of calling them a liar, isn't it? "Oh, I haven't experienced that" is less confrontational - you are not expected to have experienced it if you don't hold the same identity.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    A discussion does not have to mean you are only talking about things you have personally experienced. It might mean things that you think should or shouldn’t happen in the future or implications about what is happening in the broader world based on your personal experiences or beliefs. If the conclusions someone draws for one of these things are based on what they consider their identity, they may be very resistant to hear any contrary opinions. A healthy (or fruitful) discussion should have room for reasonable disagreement about the meanings and implications of what one has personally experienced. You need not deny the reality of someone’s experience to draw a different conclusion from it than they do.
kybernetikos 5y ago
Indeed, in fact, I think it might be better to have as large an identity as possible, so that the group you associate with most includes all the people you're talking to. Getting all of nature into your 'in-group' is likely to the best way to hack your visceral ethical system into something approaching an actually ethical one. Yes, it's hard to challenge things you think are core to your identity, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and it's easier to do so if you're surrounded by people you know will care about you which ever identity you choose.
prox 5y ago
I agree to some extend with your comment. I think stance and open-mind is more important, it’s not for naught one of the rules here is “curious conversation”. Or as this Bertrand Russel quote : “What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.”

Lammy 5y ago

I guess I would ask a hypothetical-pg to define his idea of a "fruitful" discussion. I'll trust that he (and other VCs) would share my belief in the collective-objectivity of subjective human realities and aren't just having discussions on how to make as much money as possible :)

dragonwriter 5y ago

> "More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants." > Is that true? I don't think so, but it approaches a truth. You can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any two or more of the participants in areas where they have fundamental and intractable conflict. But even this requires a very specific definition of “engage”. Its not just a matter of having overlap with content of the identity, but provoking a defensive, identity-based response. There are people who can converse around identity-related issues without their identity being engaged.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

I think the amount of truth in that statement is "it depends". I've found that having conversations about certain controversial topics is can be unproductive unless you're talking to someone you know fairly well, and both parties are willing to listen with an open mind. When someone you don't know well says something that goes against your idea of common sense, it's easy to dismiss them as an out-group idiot. When it's someone you've known for years, who you know to be thoughtful about their beliefs, it's harder to dismiss them out of hand. This is anecdotal, but I've also found that people who bring up those sorts of identity issues when you don't know them well aren't usually looking to engage with someone who disagrees. They're looking to see if you belong to the same tribe. If you do, it's an opportunity to bond.

lliamander 5y ago

The presence or absence of good faith in the person with whom you are engaged I think makes the biggest difference.

imgabe 5y ago

It depends on what you mean by "fruitful discussion". If you are willing to listen to a person expound on their identity, and accept uncritically whatever they say, then most people will happily talk your ear off about it. If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual, and discussions where one person believes they are being personally insulted by the other are rarely fruitful.

teachingassist 5y ago
> If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual I don't think it's healthy conversation to "question" what someone [you have just met] is saying in any circumstances. Questioning without having a developed background and context is a polite way of calling them a liar, isn't it? "Oh, I haven't experienced that" is less confrontational - you are not expected to have experienced it if you don't hold the same identity.
- imgabe 5y ago
  A discussion does not have to mean you are only talking about things you have personally experienced. It might mean things that you think should or shouldn’t happen in the future or implications about what is happening in the broader world based on your personal experiences or beliefs. If the conclusions someone draws for one of these things are based on what they consider their identity, they may be very resistant to hear any contrary opinions. A healthy (or fruitful) discussion should have room for reasonable disagreement about the meanings and implications of what one has personally experienced. You need not deny the reality of someone’s experience to draw a different conclusion from it than they do.

kybernetikos 5y ago

Indeed, in fact, I think it might be better to have as large an identity as possible, so that the group you associate with most includes all the people you're talking to. Getting all of nature into your 'in-group' is likely to the best way to hack your visceral ethical system into something approaching an actually ethical one. Yes, it's hard to challenge things you think are core to your identity, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and it's easier to do so if you're surrounded by people you know will care about you which ever identity you choose.

prox 5y ago

I agree to some extend with your comment. I think stance and open-mind is more important, it’s not for naught one of the rules here is “curious conversation”. Or as this Bertrand Russel quote : “What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.”