I don't think that image beats out the Caucasian white male from the US even within Latin America.
The hierarchy of the racial dating game is still consistent.
Also the situation in the US is not simply false impressions by hollywood casting. Bro, hollywood casting is reactionary to the situation in the states. It's much much deeper than that.
Asian females born in the united states... a huge number of them are Racist against their own race. Many date white people, and many refuse to date asian males. This is much more then some false perception.
Asian Females have very very in depth and realistic perceptions about asian males given the fact they have Fathers and brothers that they grew up with. The choice they make is done NOT because of false perception projected by hollywood or whatever.
You have to get scientific and realistic about this. White people fucking asians easily talk about this behind closed doors, but as an Asian... it's much harder to see reality BECAUSE of IDENTITY.
He doesn't tell you to stop being x. The title says keep your identity small, implying he knows it's impossible.
I'm not saying this is true, it's obviously not, but what if we lived in a universe where science objectively found that being queer was an actual disease and could be cured with a pill? This is the science and logic in that universe. So in that universe does your identity then preclude you from having a scientific and logical conclusion about being queer? If you didn't have that identity I would say it would be easier to be objective about that topic in that universe?
This is the thing Graham is talking about. I hope you can see the purpose of the (obviously untrue and just hypothetical) example, despite it being negatively related to your identity. I think it's still possible to disassociate a little bit even if it's an intrinsic part of your identity.
Paul is more talking about pride and identity. He's not talking about full embodiment or awareness of what identity is.
I'm going to say an example that's not true but it's just to demonstrate a point.
For example if I say "All women are stupid." If you identify as a woman you get offended and emotionally compromised. You assume the person who said it is wrong and you leave.
If you don't identify as a woman and you aren't offended by the statement at all.... perhaps you can do an objective and open minded study to get to the bottom of the question.
An objective person can look at the data and realize that on the bell curve of IQ... men and woman have the same average but men have a thicker tail on the far ends of both sides of the curve. This says that the small population of extremely intelligent people and extremely stupid people are mostly men. By not having pride you can be more objective and see this nuance.
Graham is talking about pride and identity and how it effects your objectivity and bias and intelligent analysis. He is not referring to the actual meaning and definition of identity.
The dark side of lacking identity and being objective is that while I illustrate a rosy conclusion (that is also true) here, not all conclusions are rosy. It is very possible that for certain scenarios the data shows results that are not politically correct. What if the data shows that women are truly stupider? What then?
I went to the gender thing primarily because much of the discussion seemed centered on that. But in general I would say my identity is comprised of many more things other than my gender.
By trying to simplify a definition of identity into something specific or plucking out a single identity trait (any trait) which cannot be defined precisely (emacs vs vim, declarative vs functional, race, intelligence, flavor, color etc) we lose information and end up in never ending ratholes of discussion. People start relying on personal experiences and feelings (subjective info) which makes the discussion personal and more often than not useless.
There are cases where someones entire life is founded on a lie and that no productive discussion is possible. Sure you can "discuss" these topics amicably but they always end up "agreeing to disagree". Nothing was changed, the needle wasn't moved.. the discussion was useless and unproductive.
The truly challenging question here is HOW do you have a truly productive discussion around these topics. Graham is right. The ONLY way is for someone to give up his identity. True dispassion. That is the only time when someone can truly discuss these hard topics "productively". There is literally no other way.
Your method involves sort of dancing around the controversial topic and having useless but amicable discussions. I think your advice leads to unproductive conversations and it's also really obvious knowledge that everyone is somewhat aware about.
But I'm happy to hear other peoples opinions! We can agree to disagree.
You are missing an important point of the poster: you have to abandon cageing self-prejudice - but at the same time, a similar operation should done one the image of the other. Give up identities (self-side) and give up prejudice (other-side).
Oh, It's completely too late for me. I cannot unbelieve what I believe.
I already live a life of lies. Nobody knows what I believe and I lie to seem normal and socialize-able. I also don't hold any strong desire to "implement" my beliefs. It's just a perspective.. I am an observer with opinions and I don't care to be any sort of activist.
I largely agree with your last post. However it's too late. I no longer believe what I believe out of choice. I have no choice in what I believe. Once these truths crystallize in your head as truths, they stay that way unless someone can point out any logical flaws. Thinking back it would've been better to not have gone down the path of being cursed with knowledge.
I actually wish to be part of certain religious communities because of the great social benefits that come with being part of said groups. But certain knowledge makes me unable to fully participate because the lie becomes to great.
Imagine praying and worshiping and studying about an entity that I believe is a complete fabrication... just for social benefits. The time sunk into living that lie is too great. So usually I'm part of more moderate groups that mostly avoid these topics. But these groups tend to be more ephemeral.
Humans need a shared lie/belief to bond deeply, and if you lose the ability to lie to yourself it's harder to join these more close knit groups.
However as I grow older, I contemplate more and more whether the lie is worth it. Maybe one day when I'm an old lonely man like I'm 70, I'll live the lie and join one of those religious groups.
>Your ultimate objective should be thriving, ideally for you and as many people and creatures as you can afford to account for.
I want to comment on this part specifically. Because there's a problem here. Being aware that thriving is more important then truth and living by that principle means that you are aware that your concept of what is true is on shaky grounds. You KNOW you made sacrifices to what your truth is in order to thrive. You are aware you are lying to yourself and that defeats the nature of the lie.
To truly thrive in my opinion, you must be unaware and ignorant of these concepts. You must not think about or even be aware about the orthogonality of happiness and knowledge. Just go with the flow. These are the people that are truly happy.
From your post it seems it's a little too late for you as well, you're not as deep as me but you're somewhat down that path. You're aware of the shared lie, you just choose not to think about it too deeply. That's an ok place to be. You might not have contemplated about these topics to deeply and have the "I'm not an expert so I don't know" attitude and it works out. Just know that each step forward down that path is permanent, there is no turning back.
Anyway I brought up this thread, the main purpose was basically to point out that although what graham says is true, giving up your identity for rationality has a High Cost. But this point is lost because my "6 bullet points" (designed with the intent to point out our own biases) was way to visceral. It shows how inescapable bias really is.
I'm actually hoping to meet someone like-minded. Someone who "gets it" on the same level that I do. But that seems less and less likely given the flag.
I believe that the answer you seek is in the article. You're too attached to a sick mindset. It's better to stop overthinking and doing something that have more pleasant effects (for you) than writting long-winded comments here. Or maybe not.
I don't think you read my comment or the article carefully. The extreme end of that article, giving up all your identity is my "sick mindset". That is the ultimate conclusion.
You might as well not comment if you're not going to read anything. I don't care for you comment otherwise. Better for you to start actually thinking and stop mistaking that for "over thinking", because your reply indicates you haven't.
Drop what. Again you didn't read the article. The article isn't about how far you go. It's only about how identity is correlated with stupidity. The more identity you have the stupider you are.
It doesn't talk about taking it to the extreme.
This isn't something you can drop. There are caricature movie characters that are in similar predicaments. If I name them you will understand. Rick Sanchez and Thanos. The term is cursed knowledge. You cannot undo knowledge gained, once you have it, it sticks with you.
Thanos is a villain. The slaughter he conducts is horrifying, yet his logic has a truth that he cannot deny. In the end it's the avengers who delude themselves.
Rick Sanchez would be more similar to where I am. Knowledge of the cold hard truths and apathy towards everything.
That philosophy doesn't mean anything to me. It may define what I feel but in the end it's just a word. Do you read it and suddenly come to the conclusion that eugenics is a valid strategy?
People claim to pragmatic, but true pragmatism involves some horrible stuff. See my 6 points.
The hierarchy of the racial dating game is still consistent.
Also the situation in the US is not simply false impressions by hollywood casting. Bro, hollywood casting is reactionary to the situation in the states. It's much much deeper than that.
Asian females born in the united states... a huge number of them are Racist against their own race. Many date white people, and many refuse to date asian males. This is much more then some false perception.
Asian Females have very very in depth and realistic perceptions about asian males given the fact they have Fathers and brothers that they grew up with. The choice they make is done NOT because of false perception projected by hollywood or whatever.
You have to get scientific and realistic about this. White people fucking asians easily talk about this behind closed doors, but as an Asian... it's much harder to see reality BECAUSE of IDENTITY.