Originally posted on The Skeptitcher Rebbe
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Link
I recently cam across this article: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html and I thought I would share it here.
Keep Your Identity Small
February 2009
I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions.
As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?
What's different about religion is that people don't feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it. All they need is strongly held beliefs, and anyone can have those. No thread about Javascript will grow as fast as one about religion, because people feel they have to be over some threshold of expertise to post comments about that. But on religion everyone's an expert.
Then it struck me: this is the problem with politics too. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.
Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.
But this isn't true. There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers, like how much a new government policy will cost. But the more precise political questions suffer the same fate as the vaguer ones.
I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.
Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't. No one would know what side to be on. So it's not politics that's the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people's identities.
Because the point at which this happens depends on the people rather than the topic, it's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer. For example, the question of the relative merits of programming languages often degenerates into a religious war, because so many programmers identify as X programmers or Y programmers. This sometimes leads people to conclude the question must be unanswerable—that all languages are equally good. Obviously that's false: anything else people make can be well or badly designed; why should this be uniquely impossible for programming languages? And indeed, you can have a fruitful discussion about the relative merits of programming languages, so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.
More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn't safely talk about with others.
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.
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.
I think this article is very insightful and has some very good points. It makes me want to reconsider how I identify myself or at least how the way I identify myself may skew my beliefs.
However, even if you think you don't identify with a group you may still be falling into the above trap. For example, I am not sure how much of my argument for circumcision has to do with my identity (probably a lot) as well as I am unsure how much other peoples arguments against circumcision has to do with their conceived identities (either as atheists or whatever). It seems to me that people should always be on guard against the traps in our minds that we set for ourselves. You can never be too sure that you are arguing solely on rational grounds and that your personal emotional attachment towards a topic has nothing to do with your positions.
Posted by Skeptitcher Rebbe at 10:23 AM
================================================
4 comments:
Anonymous said...
I don't identify (much) with Jewishness even though I was born into a Jewish family. As a I get older my identification gets less. But it will probably be there somewhat forever. I don't see it ever going away completely. Somethings are impossible to remove even if you wanted to
December 2, 2010 1:41 PM
Questioning Yid said...
I found this article quite interesting myself. I am all too familiar with the detrimental effects of identity on parties being able to relate. I have a deep-rooted Jewish identity, but it was formed in a mixed marriage and a predominantly Christian school. As I moved beyond the early stages of being a Ba'al Teshuva, rather quickly I might add, I returned to my identity incorporating my non-religious and non-Jewish background. I disagree with the general idea that any sense of identity is detrimental. It is through our identities that we find others with whom we relate and form friendships, communities, and societies. Perhaps, rather than avoiding things entering our identity, we should instead work to ensure our identities are not just tolerant of others, but are open to differing identities and points of view. We should identify as people interested in getting to know and understand the thoughts and feelings and beliefs and identities of others and welcome them with open arms. I think that is the true step beyond.
December 13, 2010 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...
The premise of this article is wrong. JavasScript does always lead to an argument.
Mac vs PC? Yankees vs Redsocks. Apple, Microsoft, Google... all of it.
February 28, 2011 4:49 AM
MatureDurai said...
"I disagree with the general idea that any sense of identity is detrimental. It is through our identities that we find others with whom we relate and form friendships, communities, and societies. Perhaps, rather than avoiding things entering our identity, we should instead work to ensure our identities are not just tolerant of others, but are open to differing identities and points of view."
Well said,Questioning Yid!Cheers!
August 1, 2011 1:28 AM
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Monday, November 28, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Hearts and Minds
Originally posted on David's Harp
THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2006
Link
It is a well traveled saying that people do not give up orthodoxy because of religious doubts, rather, they develop doubts to rationalize their desire to give up orthodoxy. I have a strong instinctive urge to refute this idea. It seems inherently dismissive and not respectful of the legitimacy of the ideas and motivations of those of us who ‘leave’. For someone like myself, who is inherently cognitively driven, and who has spent so much time reinforcing this intellectualism in the bais medrash, it is particularly annoying.
After all, there are more than enough difficult points of belief within Judaism to have rational reasons to disbelieve. If anything, believing – which requires the acceptance of almost endless supernatural events and divine prophesies - is far less rational.
But as much as I would like to get on my soapbox and argue that this is fundamentally untrue – that we stay or leave because of our theological reasons, the fact is that I believe that it touches on one of the most basic facets of humanity and faith. I’ve seen much discussion on what ‘belief’ – a principle requirement of orthodoxy – really means. But what is often overlooked is that belief is inherently an emotional process. It is the adherence to an idea which, by definition, has no rational verification. In modern psychological literature it is “an emotion which gains long term purpose”. Beliefs are ideas which have become deep seated sentiments.
As anyone who has engaged in theological debate knows, you can’t talk someone out of their beliefs. This concept is very well understood by those who are in the business of changing the ideology of others – missionaries, kiruv workers, cult recruiters. They know that in order to change a belief, the emotional groundwork must be established.
Of course, we are rational beings as well, and we struggle to maintain a coherent intellectual ‘story’ which works with our beliefs. Perhaps the more far fetched and irrational our beliefs are, the stronger our emotional attachment must be to maintain it. The emotional attachment which we develop with orthodoxy – from our earliest childhood experiences - are incredibly strong. Those who change a fundamental belief require a strong emotional incentive to do so. Perhaps that incentive is unhappiness in their life, perhaps it is something about the way that frum society works which doesn’t work for them, perhaps it is an emotional pull from outside of the frum world. It’s possible that some of us are so strongly intellectual that the very irrationality of the frum system adds to their unhappiness. But for all of us, you must understand the emotional context in order to understand why we remained orthodox or did not.
Frankly, this mechanism is one of the things that I wish were different about our species. If our rationality is fundamentally at the mercy our emotions, how do we go forward with our intellectual exploration. How do we trust our own reasoning. How do we be believe our own thoughts. For someone who grew up with the ideals of intellectual honesty and being true to ideals and beliefs, it is unnerving to think that our cognitive process is so polluted by our emotions. I was raised with the belief that, while our intellect represents our higher calling, and should guide our actions, emotions are the voice of the baser part of our beings. Emotions are there only as a test of our ability to use our intellects to overcome them.
I think that it is only by embracing the interplay between feelings and ideas can we regain our intellectual honesty. Navigating through our reasoning with honesty and moral clarity requires an heightened respect for and awareness of our emotions. If you’ve been raised in a religious environment, it becomes almost second nature to dismiss feelings. Many of the things which we feel are not helpful to our lives – the easiest thing to do is to shut those emotions out. Some feelings don’t jibe with our moral outlook. We automatically label these emotions as being ‘wrong’, and often don’t even let our conscious mind acknowledge that they exist.
But it is only in being highly aware of our emotions – be they comfortable or uncomfortable – that we can be fully aware of our intellectual process. Doing this is what gives us choice. We don’t have to act on our emotions – life is about making those choices. But if we do not listen to what our hearts are saying to us, we will never really understand our own minds.
=================
The Jewish Freak said...
What you say about developing religious doubts to rationalize a desire to give up orthodoxy can not be taken lightly. Perhaps metaphysical ideas of G-d and religion are so abstract, that we are easily fooled by our emotions. Maybe those who give up orthodoxy are just fooling themselves. This idea takes up much of my brain much of the time. After all, it is not really orthodoxy that anyone is really after, it is truth that we pursue - no one claims to believe an orthodoxy that isn't true. So the question becomes: How can we ever trust our own thoughts?
I try to answer that question by assuming the orthodox point of view. Why am I any less biased in favor of orthodoxy which is my comfort zone, my social network, and maybe even my livlihood, not to mention my main source of ego and self-esteem, than I would be toward skepticism? A religious figure can accuse a scientist (and maybe even rightly so) of being biased against religion, but he can not escape his own criticism because he is no less biased toward religion. And if truth is the goal, which one is closer?
Human reason has been the only method that I am aware of that has produced anything that remotely resembles truth. The religious person would have to explain how his human reason informs him to have faith. In other words, how it makes "sense" to have faith, put simply, "it is rational to suspend rationality". This is clearly a difficult position, and not one that I would want to defend.
January 26, 2006 3:24 PM
dbs said...
I agree that it is a difficult proposition. Of course, it is symetrical - the same emotional forces are at play to keep you orthodox.
January 28, 2006 10:13 PM
anonymous said...
Very interesting post, and the notion that emotion is at the root of faith is of course true.
However, I don't think that being in a religious environment trains one to ignore emotions. I think that is likely a function of personality or individual family background.
January 31, 2006 12:08 PM
dbs said...
Certainly there are other factors besides religion which influence how in tune we are with our emotions. On the other hand, I think that the view of feelings being spiritually good or bad – rather than thoughts which inform us about ourselves – encourages us to dismiss our emotions as evil messages from within, rather than important information from our subconscious minds.
February 01, 2006 8:01 PM
THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2006
Link
It is a well traveled saying that people do not give up orthodoxy because of religious doubts, rather, they develop doubts to rationalize their desire to give up orthodoxy. I have a strong instinctive urge to refute this idea. It seems inherently dismissive and not respectful of the legitimacy of the ideas and motivations of those of us who ‘leave’. For someone like myself, who is inherently cognitively driven, and who has spent so much time reinforcing this intellectualism in the bais medrash, it is particularly annoying.
After all, there are more than enough difficult points of belief within Judaism to have rational reasons to disbelieve. If anything, believing – which requires the acceptance of almost endless supernatural events and divine prophesies - is far less rational.
But as much as I would like to get on my soapbox and argue that this is fundamentally untrue – that we stay or leave because of our theological reasons, the fact is that I believe that it touches on one of the most basic facets of humanity and faith. I’ve seen much discussion on what ‘belief’ – a principle requirement of orthodoxy – really means. But what is often overlooked is that belief is inherently an emotional process. It is the adherence to an idea which, by definition, has no rational verification. In modern psychological literature it is “an emotion which gains long term purpose”. Beliefs are ideas which have become deep seated sentiments.
As anyone who has engaged in theological debate knows, you can’t talk someone out of their beliefs. This concept is very well understood by those who are in the business of changing the ideology of others – missionaries, kiruv workers, cult recruiters. They know that in order to change a belief, the emotional groundwork must be established.
Of course, we are rational beings as well, and we struggle to maintain a coherent intellectual ‘story’ which works with our beliefs. Perhaps the more far fetched and irrational our beliefs are, the stronger our emotional attachment must be to maintain it. The emotional attachment which we develop with orthodoxy – from our earliest childhood experiences - are incredibly strong. Those who change a fundamental belief require a strong emotional incentive to do so. Perhaps that incentive is unhappiness in their life, perhaps it is something about the way that frum society works which doesn’t work for them, perhaps it is an emotional pull from outside of the frum world. It’s possible that some of us are so strongly intellectual that the very irrationality of the frum system adds to their unhappiness. But for all of us, you must understand the emotional context in order to understand why we remained orthodox or did not.
Frankly, this mechanism is one of the things that I wish were different about our species. If our rationality is fundamentally at the mercy our emotions, how do we go forward with our intellectual exploration. How do we trust our own reasoning. How do we be believe our own thoughts. For someone who grew up with the ideals of intellectual honesty and being true to ideals and beliefs, it is unnerving to think that our cognitive process is so polluted by our emotions. I was raised with the belief that, while our intellect represents our higher calling, and should guide our actions, emotions are the voice of the baser part of our beings. Emotions are there only as a test of our ability to use our intellects to overcome them.
I think that it is only by embracing the interplay between feelings and ideas can we regain our intellectual honesty. Navigating through our reasoning with honesty and moral clarity requires an heightened respect for and awareness of our emotions. If you’ve been raised in a religious environment, it becomes almost second nature to dismiss feelings. Many of the things which we feel are not helpful to our lives – the easiest thing to do is to shut those emotions out. Some feelings don’t jibe with our moral outlook. We automatically label these emotions as being ‘wrong’, and often don’t even let our conscious mind acknowledge that they exist.
But it is only in being highly aware of our emotions – be they comfortable or uncomfortable – that we can be fully aware of our intellectual process. Doing this is what gives us choice. We don’t have to act on our emotions – life is about making those choices. But if we do not listen to what our hearts are saying to us, we will never really understand our own minds.
=================
The Jewish Freak said...
What you say about developing religious doubts to rationalize a desire to give up orthodoxy can not be taken lightly. Perhaps metaphysical ideas of G-d and religion are so abstract, that we are easily fooled by our emotions. Maybe those who give up orthodoxy are just fooling themselves. This idea takes up much of my brain much of the time. After all, it is not really orthodoxy that anyone is really after, it is truth that we pursue - no one claims to believe an orthodoxy that isn't true. So the question becomes: How can we ever trust our own thoughts?
I try to answer that question by assuming the orthodox point of view. Why am I any less biased in favor of orthodoxy which is my comfort zone, my social network, and maybe even my livlihood, not to mention my main source of ego and self-esteem, than I would be toward skepticism? A religious figure can accuse a scientist (and maybe even rightly so) of being biased against religion, but he can not escape his own criticism because he is no less biased toward religion. And if truth is the goal, which one is closer?
Human reason has been the only method that I am aware of that has produced anything that remotely resembles truth. The religious person would have to explain how his human reason informs him to have faith. In other words, how it makes "sense" to have faith, put simply, "it is rational to suspend rationality". This is clearly a difficult position, and not one that I would want to defend.
January 26, 2006 3:24 PM
dbs said...
I agree that it is a difficult proposition. Of course, it is symetrical - the same emotional forces are at play to keep you orthodox.
January 28, 2006 10:13 PM
anonymous said...
Very interesting post, and the notion that emotion is at the root of faith is of course true.
However, I don't think that being in a religious environment trains one to ignore emotions. I think that is likely a function of personality or individual family background.
January 31, 2006 12:08 PM
dbs said...
Certainly there are other factors besides religion which influence how in tune we are with our emotions. On the other hand, I think that the view of feelings being spiritually good or bad – rather than thoughts which inform us about ourselves – encourages us to dismiss our emotions as evil messages from within, rather than important information from our subconscious minds.
February 01, 2006 8:01 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)