Paul Graham, in this essay, really puts his finger on something I’ve thought for years but never formulated so well or so precisely:
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. [2]
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.
In some ways I think I operate in a weird identity purgatory, and what happens is that you listen to people say stuff and you think to yourself: what a fucking tool; that is so obviously full of shit. And you feel very clever for being clear-sighted about the thing, and equally confused at how other people can be so dumb. Of course, with respect to other things you are not so clear sighted; and probably don’t even see the ways in which you yourself are the idiot.
Recently I read a blog post by a thoughtful guy, who I would characterize generally as a very clear thinker, who suddenly, on the topic of the Israel/Palestine clusterfuck, suddenly became dogmatic and un-subtle. This situation, alone of all the complicated situations he had carefully analyzed, was full of certainties and stark divisions.
Huh, I said to myself. Even you.