Keep Your Identity Small

My Understanding

In “Keep Your Identity Small,” Paul Graham mainly discusses religion and politics. My understanding is that when these subjects become part of someone’s identity, it becomes difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. An argument is not shaped only by its topic. It also depends on the people participating and the identities they bring to it. Graham points out that religion and politics have no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. Anyone can have strong convictions. When a discussion touches something people identify with, it can turn hostile very quickly, like a wildfire. I took his point to mean that bias and attachment to identity can prevent a useful discussion. That is why he recommends keeping fewer labels as part of who we are. Connections and observations I wonder whether this principle might work as part of a constitution for AI, or as guidance for discussions about software development and technology. It reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics as a possible rule for artificial systems, although I am unsure how well it translates to human beings. I liked the scientist example in the second footnote. The acknowledgments also surprised me: Graham thanked Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, and Robert Morris. I know Altman through OpenAI, but I was unfamiliar with the other names. Seeing them connected in an essay from 2009 made me think about how far back their relationships go.

Agreement / Disagreement

This makes sense to me in some ways, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of reducing identity. As someone who is sentimental, I feel that identity and emotional attachment are part of being human. I agree that people should try to approach discussions with neutrality. But rather than asking them to detach from their identity, I would frame it as being tolerant of opposing views. A view may feel hurtful or challenge something central to who you are, but you can still make room for it.

Questions

Would giving up attachments to identity mean losing something that makes us human? Could tolerance of opposing views be an alternative to detachment?