I was reading Paul Graham’s essay the other day on keeping your identity small. It made me think for the following few days, the following formula :

Reasoning ∝ 1 / (Identity)

The smaller our identity, the better reasoning we can make. Paul Graham says that almost any back and forth conversation on the internet about religion, politics, nationality turns into a useless fight of argument. But, we hardly see such fights in a conversation around programming languages eg: javascript.

Topics that are not part of identity, we can see people arguing pretty rationally over it. But, when it comes to arguing about any topic that involves our identity, our reasoning goes out of the window and we easily get triggered.

But, why does it happen? Why can’t we think objectively, why can’t we argue logically, why can’t we have a fruitful conversation- when it comes to our identity?

I would like to borrow an argument from Yuval Harari’s book Sapiens, where he said humans did not evolve to think scientifically – for millions of years human’s evolved in the tribe. And protecting the tribe and tribal identity is a fundamental human characteristic. An attack on tribal/group identity is considered an attack on own self. And people tend to go to any length to protect their identity. We do not independently see facts and then try to deduct truth from fundamental reasoning. In reality, It is almost always a backward process, we have a set of beliefs, and we cherry-pick facts that further confirm our beliefs, giving rise to the bubble of “confirmation bias”. Humans are not truth-seekers by design. Evolutionarily, we are designed to obey our tribes. This gave us a better evolutionary chance of survival.

I have observed this phenomena time and time again in real-life conversations. Try logically criticizing any religion in front of its followers, try criticizing atheisms in front of an ashiest, try to criticize a country’s role in the time of any war in front of its countrymen – the conversations almost always turn into warfare.

So what can be done about it? How can we be more rational in this ever-changing world? Paul Graham suggested that the more labels/identity we have, the dumber it makes us. So it is better to have fewer labels, it is better to keep your identities small. 

Buddha said similar things a thousand plus years ago. According to Buddha personal identity is delusional and attachment to worldly identities is a path to defensiveness, motivated thinking, and general suffering. Buddha suggested having very few attachments.

We see similar teachings in Islam too, Prophet Muhammad said: be a stranger in this world and never attach yourself to it. 

So, should we try to have fewer identities to lead a better life and to have clarity in thought?

But, isn’t it true that having an identity gives us a sense of belonging and a sense of community. If we live a life with very little attachment to identities, will that make us happy? Will that give us a meaningful life?

I have no definite answer to that. I am still seeking this answer myself. As humans, It is impossible to live a life without identities.

 But, I think there is merit in not being overly attached to your identities. I think there is merit to seeing the world as a debater. In debates, you do not know what side of the topic you are on, before 15 minutes. You can be for a topic, in one round, and against that topic in another round. You are not married to a topic. Truth is relative, and there multiple sides of the truth. So the best way is when you can think from multiple perspectives. It is the closest path to seeing the truth. Even the thinnest paper has two sides in it. The most beautiful diamond in the world has a lot of sharp edges in them and light shines in those edges to make the diamond sparkle. Similarly, the path to finding objective truth is through multiple lenses. And many times those lenses will be completely against your identity and beliefs

“I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don’t know the other side’s argument better than they do”

― Charlie Munger

 As Munger says, we should know the other side’s argument better than they know theirs

So, in seeing one topic from multiple sides, we have to be open to reexamine our own beliefs, own identities.

Time and time again we have to question our core identities, our strongly held beliefs.

 The less concerned we are with our identity, the more we can reason from first principles and the closer we can get to the truth. So, loose identities will give us tighter reasoning, and tight identities will give us loose reasoning