A short essay by Paul Graham about the benefits of not thinking of yourself as X or Y.
- The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.
Can we make this article required reading for anyone who has strong feelings about being absolutely right about anything? Considering yourself a scientist is equivalent to putting a sign in a cupboard saying "this cupboard must be kept empty." Yes, strictly speaking, you're putting something in the cupboard, but not in the ordinary sense.There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn't commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he's committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.
I feel like Graham's almost right, but drops the ball when he says this: I agree with him that discussions about religion and politics are often shouting matches because it's a part of one's identity. People become irrationally defensive / offensive when their identity is questioned. But it'd be a terrible idea to use that as a reason to avoid such a debate. A lot of other things are a big(ger) part of my identity: my upbringing, my travels, my education. Should I avoid talking about these topics? Besides, I don't think it's even possible to detach yourself from your identity. It's inherently interwoven.The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. 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.
Perhaps he should say -- Keep Your "Identity" Small -- and then be clearer on parts of identity that create fuzzy thinking. I agree, veen, that "identity" is created from all of our experiences. I also agree with Graham that our "identity" should not be too rooted in a whole lot of "beliefs". Examining one's assumptions is quite difficult to do, because the assumptions are built on other assumptions. These might be derived from cognitive biases and illogical arguments. Is the question: "Who are you?" the same question as "What do you believe?" - I'm not sure it is. Is "What do you believe" the same question as "What are you certain of?"When asked to explain his success, Arno Penzias, 1978 Nobel Prize winner for physics, said "Change starts with the individual. So the first thing I do each morning is ask myself, 'Why do I strongly believe what I believe?' Constantly examine your own assumptions." from "The Art of Powerful Questions" (see www.theworldcafe.com toolkit)
Very good point. Politics and religion are good examples of types of discussion spiralling into arguments. Another one is animal rights, particularly of non-pet animals.