4 ms·

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 "thei

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.
- aeturnum 4y ago
  To me, the core of what I am pointing out as "very Paul Graham" is in these two quotes: > I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions. and If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity[...] To view discussions where people get upset as "useless" reflects a certain hierarchy of the purposes of discussion and the goals of inquiry. The same is true for prioritizing the kind of impassioned discussions that Graham is talking about here. His advice is good (Paul Graham is not dumb!) if you feel the same way and value this kind of high minded dispassionate discussion. Perhaps what I should have said is that I believe most people do not feel they suffer when they experience (and voice) the emotional weight of conversations. They suffer because they feel unseen and unheard in those conversations - the conflict is a symptom, not the disease. There's nothing wrong with wanting people to discuss things they care deeply about dispassionately - but there's nothing right about it either. It reflects a certain hierarchy of values and goals that are, again, "very Paul Graham." It sounds like those values are very you too! Which is fine! This advice will make you better able to engage in the way that Paul Graham wants to engage! I certainly agree with that. But I do not think it is "better" in a particularly universal way.
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    At the bottom what you're saying is no one is right about anything ever and its all just opinions and value systems maaaan. Sure if you define a value system where yelling a lot and accomplishing little is the goal then mission accomplished, but I don't think its classist to say that's a pretty shit value system. It certainly isn't as good a value system as any other in the sense that there's some alternate universe where the conventionally successful people have those values and the conventionally unsuccessful have the PG-of-our-universe values.
  - mwcampbell 4y ago
    > if you feel the same way and value this kind of high minded dispassionate discussion. Shouldn't we all value that type of discussion? After all, it's most likely to lead to the objectively correct answers to questions about facts, and optimal answers to questions about policies.
strken 4y ago
There's a difference between what you yourself believe is core to who you are, and what other people would say is core. They both get called identity, but I think Paul Graham is talking about the first, which is something you really are allowed to choose in the privacy of your own head.

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.

aeturnum 4y ago
To me, the core of what I am pointing out as "very Paul Graham" is in these two quotes: > I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions. and If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity[...] To view discussions where people get upset as "useless" reflects a certain hierarchy of the purposes of discussion and the goals of inquiry. The same is true for prioritizing the kind of impassioned discussions that Graham is talking about here. His advice is good (Paul Graham is not dumb!) if you feel the same way and value this kind of high minded dispassionate discussion. Perhaps what I should have said is that I believe most people do not feel they suffer when they experience (and voice) the emotional weight of conversations. They suffer because they feel unseen and unheard in those conversations - the conflict is a symptom, not the disease. There's nothing wrong with wanting people to discuss things they care deeply about dispassionately - but there's nothing right about it either. It reflects a certain hierarchy of values and goals that are, again, "very Paul Graham." It sounds like those values are very you too! Which is fine! This advice will make you better able to engage in the way that Paul Graham wants to engage! I certainly agree with that. But I do not think it is "better" in a particularly universal way.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  At the bottom what you're saying is no one is right about anything ever and its all just opinions and value systems maaaan. Sure if you define a value system where yelling a lot and accomplishing little is the goal then mission accomplished, but I don't think its classist to say that's a pretty shit value system. It certainly isn't as good a value system as any other in the sense that there's some alternate universe where the conventionally successful people have those values and the conventionally unsuccessful have the PG-of-our-universe values.
- mwcampbell 4y ago
  > if you feel the same way and value this kind of high minded dispassionate discussion. Shouldn't we all value that type of discussion? After all, it's most likely to lead to the objectively correct answers to questions about facts, and optimal answers to questions about policies.

strken 4y ago

There's a difference between what you yourself believe is core to who you are, and what other people would say is core. They both get called identity, but I think Paul Graham is talking about the first, which is something you really are allowed to choose in the privacy of your own head.