5 ms·

My view is that having a "small identity" is basically impossible in any practical sense. Many issues are inherently subjective, and even for issues that are (p

My view is that having a "small identity" is basically impossible in any practical sense. Many issues are inherently subjective, and even for issues that are (philosophically speaking) objective, actual human individuals rarely have the time or the access to data to form a genuinely objective view. We all use heuristic thinking, all the time, which is inevitably massively biased by all kinds of things related to our dispositions and prior experiences (aka identity). The danger is when you make the fiction of "not having an identity" a big part of your actual identity, which can make you even more blind to your biases than everyone else. I think a much more productive route to being a more effective thinker is to accept you have an identity just the same as everyone else - and invest time and effort into interrogating what that identity is and what biases and blind-spots it might lead to. This is still far from perfect, of course.

kelnos 4y ago
You can also just not take a stance on many things. I feel like a lot of the things we feel strongly about, and often end up as parts of our identity, just... don't really matter. For things where you do need to take a stance, perhaps because there's a decision that needs to be made, there's still a difference between holding a loose opinion (that you allow to be challenged, and are willing to change your mind in the face of new evidence or a better argument), and making that opinion a part of your very core (where you will just stand firm and ignore all criticism).
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
Your identity is not fully in your control but not fully out of it either. One can make a conscious choice to “find a tribe” or to not do that. I believe this essay argues that one should make a conscious choice to avoid tribe affiliation (even if that affiliation is only in your own head) in order to be a better thinker.
- acatnamedjoe 4y ago
  I guess I'm arguing that a conscious choice not to find a tribe just leads to unconsciously finding a tribe instead. Maybe the real answer is both, though - try to consciously avoid tribal thinking, but also acknowledge that it's likely to creep in anyway, and be aware when it does.
mdp2021 4y ago
> accept you have Bad framing. More like, "be aware that you may have unchecked sides". There is a difference.
- acatnamedjoe 4y ago
  I don't understand the point you're making here. Please could you elaborate.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    First of all, your interpretation of "identity" is structural, "the current state of the WeltAufbau" - f(x,P)=y where P you call 'identity', but others would call more a "personality" (philosophically) or simply, rephrasing the above, "the current state of your Belief Theory" (in technical logical terms). An "identity", in this context, is structurally more like a "loop" into a "role-playing referencing". It is not just that "such is the inner form of the function", but that the "function took extra assumptions intentionally". Intellectual care is a basic intellectual duty, it works in the said "current state" framework, and if leaning into checking the risks of "identity" can be formulated as «"be aware that you may have unchecked sides"». That does not mean that "anyone would have an attachment to a perspective" - they may just have a de facto, flexible perspective, without the cageing attachment.
abecedarius 4y ago
He said small, not zero.

kelnos 4y ago

You can also just not take a stance on many things. I feel like a lot of the things we feel strongly about, and often end up as parts of our identity, just... don't really matter. For things where you do need to take a stance, perhaps because there's a decision that needs to be made, there's still a difference between holding a loose opinion (that you allow to be challenged, and are willing to change your mind in the face of new evidence or a better argument), and making that opinion a part of your very core (where you will just stand firm and ignore all criticism).

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

Your identity is not fully in your control but not fully out of it either. One can make a conscious choice to “find a tribe” or to not do that. I believe this essay argues that one should make a conscious choice to avoid tribe affiliation (even if that affiliation is only in your own head) in order to be a better thinker.

acatnamedjoe 4y ago
I guess I'm arguing that a conscious choice not to find a tribe just leads to unconsciously finding a tribe instead. Maybe the real answer is both, though - try to consciously avoid tribal thinking, but also acknowledge that it's likely to creep in anyway, and be aware when it does.

mdp2021 4y ago

> accept you have Bad framing. More like, "be aware that you may have unchecked sides". There is a difference.

acatnamedjoe 4y ago
I don't understand the point you're making here. Please could you elaborate.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  First of all, your interpretation of "identity" is structural, "the current state of the WeltAufbau" - f(x,P)=y where P you call 'identity', but others would call more a "personality" (philosophically) or simply, rephrasing the above, "the current state of your Belief Theory" (in technical logical terms). An "identity", in this context, is structurally more like a "loop" into a "role-playing referencing". It is not just that "such is the inner form of the function", but that the "function took extra assumptions intentionally". Intellectual care is a basic intellectual duty, it works in the said "current state" framework, and if leaning into checking the risks of "identity" can be formulated as «"be aware that you may have unchecked sides"». That does not mean that "anyone would have an attachment to a perspective" - they may just have a de facto, flexible perspective, without the cageing attachment.

abecedarius 4y ago

He said small, not zero.