On identity barriers

[henrik]

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.

http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

[jennypenny]

I like Graham.

I wondered about this bit though ... "Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you." (emphasis mine)

I get it, but is it really a good idea to be neutral about everything? I guess I've always thought that life gets easier once you learn who you are and own it. I don't think a person should stop learning and growing, but I do think it relieves a lot of stress when we give up trying to be what we're not.

Is there a way to have it both ways? Can we count ourselves amongst the X's or Y's, but not assume the identify to avoid the problem Graham describes?

[GandK]

Is there a way to have it both ways? Can we count ourselves amongst the X's or Y's, but not assume the identify to avoid the problem Graham describes?

This is the slippery slope that I see:

1. I really like my team.
(No problems in this position.)

2. I LOVE my team!
(Problem A = passion.)

3. My team is better than any other team, and people on other teams should pick my team instead.
(Problems B, C = elitism; projecting.)

4. People who pick other teams after being exposed to mine have something wrong with them.
(Problem D = prejudice.)

5. People who have something wrong with them are inferior to me.
(Problem E = contempt.)

Given this, I think if you can keep yourself in 1, then it's possible to have it both ways... taking enjoyment from group membership and inclusion, but not experiencing the potentially negative effects of immersion, ownership and identity shift (and the resulting problems above). However, I don't think there are many people who can experience detachment in the Zen/Jedi sense when they really find themselves enjoying and agreeing with something. Not without a conscious effort, anyway, since most teams have a vested interest in moving you higher. Past 1 you'll proselytize for them.

[Dragline]

In my experience, people often like to define themselves by what they are NOT as much as what they are. It's a frequent plague of the well educated that leads to superiority complexes and/or often a kind of spiritual paralysis.

The only real way out is to cultivate a healthy sense of doubt in your own beliefs and a willingness to understand others.

[fiby41]

Dragline-

www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

We'll increasingly be defined by what we say no to.

[7Wannabe5]

I think just the opposite is true. The more you accept and exhibit all the unique affiliations, preferences, interests and behaviors/practices that make up you, the more you are able to see each other person as a unique variety. For instance, maybe all I know about my next door neighbor is that he votes Republican. Then I learn that he used to be an Olympic level swimmer. Then I learn that he very much enjoys constructing miniature puppet theaters. Now, he inhabits a Venn diagram intersection all by himself. One of the nerdy things I sometimes do is attempt to make lists of all the species/varieties that share or sometimes enter into my habitat/domain. It's difficult to identify squirrels as individuals, not humans.

[Ego]

Dragline-

http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

We'll increasingly be defined by what we say no to.

This. But Dragline has a point.

In my experience, people often like to define themselves by what they are NOT as much as what they are. It's a frequent plague of the well educated that leads to superiority complexes and/or often a kind of spiritual paralysis.

It is a rather zig-zagged fine line where we absolutely must abstain from the technologically enhanced addictions (meth, credit card debt, cell-phone zombies, processed foods, megachurches) while not allowing that abstinence to become who we are. The hardcore vegan can easily become indistinguishable from the Planned Parenthood shooter.

But the real problem is not in the fringes. It is that the extreme has slowly over several generations been culturally transformed to fill the moderate position.

The twice or thrice weekly sports-food-drink-fests of many Americans is not very different from the Thanksgiving or Christmas of my youth. My great-grandfather, on the other hand, watched maybe one game a year, shared a glass of wine and a panettone with family for Christmas and went to church maybe twice s year to mark deaths, marriages and other big life events.

What was once extreme is now moderate and what was once moderate is now extreme.

Choose your poison.

[GandK]

It is a rather zig-zagged fine line where we absolutely must abstain from the technologically enhanced addictions (meth, credit card debt, cell-phone zombies, processed foods, megachurches) while not allowing that abstinence to become who we are.

Megachurches?

[Dragline]

[quote="Ego"
But the real problem is not in the fringes. It is that the extreme has slowly over several generations been culturally transformed to fill the moderate position. [/quote]

I think this has happened much more recently, at least much more intensely. Nate Silver's theory or observation from "The Signal and the Noise" is that new methods of communication tend to, in their immediate aftermath, exacerbate conflict as they allow those with extreme positions to find and join with others they might not otherwise have found, and to distribute their views more widely with relative ease.

Thus, the immediate result of the Gutenberg press was not enlightenment, but conflict, culminating in the 30 Years War. The same may be said for the internet these days. People are emboldened to express extremist views by being able to find others of similar ilk with relative ease.

[RealPerson]

The only real way out is to cultivate a healthy sense of doubt in your own beliefs and a willingness to understand others.

Exactly. But doubting your own beliefs and being truly open to others requires a VERY confident person. It is to question your own identity, a process of which few are truly capable. I rarely encounter people genuinely interested in the position of others, especially when it involves religion or politics. This may be due to our ancient roots. Being part of a tribe was essential for survival. Maybe that is why we are wired to identify with whatever makes us part of the tribe. Questioning our identity is akin to putting our tribe membership in doubt. That threatens are very survival. At least it did in the stone age.

I am not suggesting that I am above it all. Genuinely listening to someone whose beliefs challenge my own requires energy and effort, and feels somewhat uncomfortable. In those instances where I am capable to open my mind, I am always glad I did.

[OldPro]

I could agree with some of what some of you have written that conflicts with my own opinions, but all that would do is make both of us wrong.