Keep Your Identity Small

Keep Your Identity Small. An essay by Paul Graham, February 2009.

Arguments that go nowhere

Why do arguments about religion and politics go nowhere? A forum thread about Javascript or baking stays civil. Mention religion, and a fight breaks out.

What's different? Before posting about Javascript, people feel they should know something. On religion, strong beliefs are enough, and everybody has some.

Politics works the same way. There's no bar to clear before you can hold an opinion. Strong convictions will do.

Not for lack of answers

What do they share? One tempting guess: their questions have no settled answers. Nobody can be shown wrong, so every opinion counts the same and everyone weighs in.

But if that were the reason, precise questions would stay calm. And some political questions are precise, like what a new policy will cost.

They don't stay calm. They blow up just like the vague ones. So a missing answer can't be the cause.

The real cause: identity

Graham's answer: these topics become part of who people are. And you can't argue usefully about a view that's part of you. You're already on its side.

Which subjects touch identity depends on who's talking. Discuss a battle between your own countries, and the talk will likely turn political.

A battle from the Bronze Age? Nobody has a side, so it stays a calm chat about history. The trouble isn't politics. It's identity.

How a religious war ignites

That's what a religious war really is: a discussion where identities do the talking. And when a discussion flips, it flips fast.

Like a reactor going critical: the bar to join drops to zero, more people pile in, and heated posts draw replies that are angrier still.

A fight doesn't mean no answer

This also exposes a mistake. Language debates turn into religious wars, since so many coders see themselves as an X programmer or a Y programmer.

So some people decide the question has no answer, that no language is better than another. That's plainly false.

Everything else people make can be designed well or badly. Why not languages? Leave out those who argue from identity, and the debate gets somewhere.

It depends who's in the room

The general rule: a discussion works only if the topic is part of nobody's identity. Not even one person's.

Religion and politics are minefields because they're part of so many identities. But with the right people, even they can be discussed.

And a topic that seems harmless, like Ford versus Chevy pickups, can be a minefield with the wrong person.

Fewer labels, better ideas

Here's the intriguing part. If this is right, it's not only about which arguments to avoid. It's a way to have better ideas.

If you can't think clearly about what's in your identity, then, all else equal, the smart move is to let as little into it as you can.

Tolerance is a start: being an X who puts up with Y. Graham suggests one more step: not calling yourself an X at all.

As he puts it: “The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.”

A label worth keeping

Is any label worth keeping? Graham suggests one might be: scientist. It ties you to no particular belief.

A biblical literalist must reject evolution, no matter what. A scientist is committed to just one thing: going where the evidence points.

It's like writing NMI, no middle initial, on a form. Or a cupboard with a sign inside: keep this empty. A label that holds nothing.

In short

Arguments about religion and politics fail because those topics become part of who people are.

Whether a topic is safe to discuss depends on who's talking.

A religious war doesn't prove that a question has no answer.

To think more clearly, keep your identity small.

The original is short, and better than this. Read it: paulgraham.com/identity.html