5 ms·

This is SUCH "Paul Graham" advice - useful mostly to people who sit on top of a hierarchy of power which does not demand any of their personal attention. I thi

This is SUCH "Paul Graham" advice - useful mostly to people who sit on top of a hierarchy of power which does not demand any of their personal attention. I think the good version of this advice is: actively evaluate what is important to you and what you can do to maintain and further it. We are all involved, to one degree or another, in systems and processes larger than ourselves. By definition, our influence on those systems is limited - but we may be able to increase or decrease our influence through work and engagement. It's healthy to reflect on what you are investing your time and energy into and how those investments will impact your life. There is no single right or wrong answer - but you will benefit from forming an opinion! It's unhealthy to falsely base your self-worth on giant political movements outside your control - but it's equally unhealthy to ignore the impact you experience from the issues of the day. Be reflective in how you associate yourself with things, but no one should pretend that they are not subject to the world (unless, it seems, you're at a "Paul Graham" level of wealth and independence).

mcbishop 4y ago
I think that not feeling personally attacked when someone expresses an opposing opinion... is helpful regardless of one's class status.
kelnos 4y ago
What a weird take. None of this has anything to do with wealth or class. It's about avoiding making arbitrary things so dear to you that you are unable to question anything about them, or even have productive, honest discussions about them. Your "good version" doesn't really make sense to me, and seems to have nothing to do with what the article is about.
- aeturnum 4y ago
  It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should get about javascript is one of them).
  - 0thgen 4y ago
    you are loading a tremendous amount of extra stuff into what's being said here. is that the right move?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 4y ago
    So what? Graham isn't talking about all that other stuff! He's just talking about "things people make a part of their identity" (for whatever reason, whether that's by choice or through a failure to resist outside pressure), and what the possible negative effects can be. I frankly don't care that Graham is rich and influential and maybe has an easier time of controlling what he thinks of himself than other people do. "Keep things out of your identity" is useful advice, even if some people will unavoidably find that harder to do because of their social/economic status. And I disagree that it applies to very few conversations. This can easily apply to the big stuff, like what some people are talking about in other threads on this post, when it comes to dealing with issues that affect marginalized groups. I think people like that are a fine example of when it can be hard to keep things out of your identity. As much as your identity (I prefer "core self-image", which I think is clearer) is your choice, often external factors will pressure you into choosing in certain ways. But I think it does harm discussions about those topics when people have made it such a core part of themselves that they can't see what kinds of persuasion other people would respond best to. I unfortunately see that sort of thing pretty often. Put another way: yes, Graham is probably the kind of person for whom it is not hard to set his own identity without all that much outside pressure. He's rich and influential. Other people will get put into boxes and groups by others who are more powerful than they are. And these less-powerful people will have a harder time keeping those things from seeping into their own identities. But that doesn't change the (IMO) correctness of Graham's message that it is useful to resist that pressure, even if it's harder for some people to do so.

mcbishop 4y ago

I think that not feeling personally attacked when someone expresses an opposing opinion... is helpful regardless of one's class status.

kelnos 4y ago

What a weird take. None of this has anything to do with wealth or class. It's about avoiding making arbitrary things so dear to you that you are unable to question anything about them, or even have productive, honest discussions about them. Your "good version" doesn't really make sense to me, and seems to have nothing to do with what the article is about.

aeturnum 4y ago
It's generally the wealthy and the high class who can pick and choose how much they feel the impact of politics. Most people don't get to choose how large "their identity" is - as others will put them into groups and make decisions based on those groups. This way of engaging with it - which is perfectly sensible from his point of view - it just applies to very few conversations (though, of course, how upset we should get about javascript is one of them).
- 0thgen 4y ago
  you are loading a tremendous amount of extra stuff into what's being said here. is that the right move?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 4y ago
  So what? Graham isn't talking about all that other stuff! He's just talking about "things people make a part of their identity" (for whatever reason, whether that's by choice or through a failure to resist outside pressure), and what the possible negative effects can be. I frankly don't care that Graham is rich and influential and maybe has an easier time of controlling what he thinks of himself than other people do. "Keep things out of your identity" is useful advice, even if some people will unavoidably find that harder to do because of their social/economic status. And I disagree that it applies to very few conversations. This can easily apply to the big stuff, like what some people are talking about in other threads on this post, when it comes to dealing with issues that affect marginalized groups. I think people like that are a fine example of when it can be hard to keep things out of your identity. As much as your identity (I prefer "core self-image", which I think is clearer) is your choice, often external factors will pressure you into choosing in certain ways. But I think it does harm discussions about those topics when people have made it such a core part of themselves that they can't see what kinds of persuasion other people would respond best to. I unfortunately see that sort of thing pretty often. Put another way: yes, Graham is probably the kind of person for whom it is not hard to set his own identity without all that much outside pressure. He's rich and influential. Other people will get put into boxes and groups by others who are more powerful than they are. And these less-powerful people will have a harder time keeping those things from seeping into their own identities. But that doesn't change the (IMO) correctness of Graham's message that it is useful to resist that pressure, even if it's harder for some people to do so.