Imperative Categories?
It is far more important to answer who one is than what one is.
What am I? How one answers this simple question can reveal a lot about a person. However it would still be possible to give an honest answer to this question and not illuminate in any way who one is. The two questions seem to ask the same thing but the way they can be answered displays the incongruity between them. While it would be relatively easy for nearly all people to list off numerous replies to what they are. I think it is far more crucial to answer who one is. I want to explore the reasons for this assertion as I see them.
Before I look into why; knowing who one is holds a key to the well-being of individuals; it will be helpful to look into the pitfalls involved in asking only what one is. When confronted with such a question a person can easily find numerous replies. Invariably they will resemble categories more than identities. Examples taken from my life would be something like; I am a cyclist, a father, an American. While these descriptions say something about me this is a poor foundation for establishing personal identity. If a person forms their sense of identity solely by the categories they identify with problems quickly follow. The dysfunctions surface both internally and externally.
Upon placing oneself into a category, to the exclusion of others the world is transformed. Relationships to others become defined by the group or category we have allied with. In more benign arenas this is mostly harmless. A good example of this is in sport.
Throughout the world groups of people come together under the flag of their chosen team or participants. Much of the time this is fun and harmless, though on occasion even a form of entertainment such as this can turn tribal and violent. Think college sports in the U.S. or Futball (Soccer) in the rest of the world. There are numerous other examples in sport. Frequently fans of a particular team can be found to say something regarding the performance of their team by describing it as, “We played well.” or “Our defense wasn’t very good.” This seems odd when considering that the person speaking likely played no part in the play of the game.
I chose the previous example because I think it displays very well Humanity’s tendency to in-group loyalty and out-group hostility. When the stakes are relatively low, as is the case in sport, this impulse usually carries very little consequence. However, given the propensity for even this particular venture to become hostile, if the risks and rewards are increased, so does uncertainty. With this uncertainty comes greater reason to fear. As the proportion of fear increases the tendency toward tribalism and intolerance for other groups becomes greatly heightened. People in general are fearful of what they do not know or understand. Thus, if one draws all or most of their view of the world from a select group who holds similar perspective the outcome is an inability to experience and therefore understand other ways of being. This is made exponentially worse if the reasons for avoiding exposure are rooted in fear of contamination. This form of intolerance usually begins with some form of indoctrination. In the majority of cases this takes place during childhood and is perpetuated by adults who were taught the same things. Once this cycle of fear and indoctrination begins it can become rather difficult to break free.
So the first problem with forming one’s identity through the categories one identifies with is that it increases the inclination for hostility aimed at groups not of similar practice, belief, colors, flag, geographic region or whatever the case may be. The main cost of this is paid by societies in general. Though there is a price to be paid by the individual as well.
On an individual level the cost comes in a myriad of forms. One being that one’s growth as a complete human being is stunted by this lack of exposure to other viewpoints. Homogeny on a cultural level stems in part from an arrogant assumption of infallibility. This assumption allows one to assume that they (or the group) already possess everything they would need to know. It is not hard to see why this could be a problem. When a person or group of people shut themselves off from all outside influence they are deprived of valuable information and experiences.
Another cost which the individual foots the bill is that he/she may suffer deprivations which are unnecessary. If practices are prohibited by an outside force of opinion then one cannot have fully formed as an individual. Their behavior being limited not by personal choice but by the coercion of others. Not doing something because others restrict its practice prevents one from developing personal opinions about the question at hand. The individual has been deprived of either the pleasure of the practice or the discovery of its unworthiness. Once a deed has been pronounced as unworthy, the individual can discard it or master it as the case may be. Anyone who is deprived of this opportunity is limited in certain ways.
By far the highest cost one pays for this lopsided and incomplete sense of self comes in the alienation experienced on almost every level. It is seems clear that the thing most desirable by all humans is a connection to others. This is not only stunted by building an identity within categories, on many levels it is made impossible. When one places (or is placed) within an illusory bracket it becomes difficult to see other persons who are not allied to the same ideology or practices as deserving of attention. Closing off in this way is destructive to individual emotional growth. Not to mention the cost in resources and opportunities.
Once these imaginary boundaries are fully established in an individual’s mind. The tendency for fear and repulsion toward what is not understood compels the expenditure of vast amounts of energy, time and initiative aimed at guarding against pretend enemies. The cost to the one concerned should seem clear enough. All of this effort is wasted on a pursuit that would not even be necessary were the groupings seen for what they are, insufficient substitutes for selfhood.
Individuality is robbed away when one finds their primary purpose and fulfillment in the status-quo of a particular group. Especially when the group one has chosen is a conglomeration that differs very little from one another. Once identity is fully enmeshed with a particular society, even questioning the ideology therein becomes rather hard on the individual. Humans are extremely prone to biases on almost every front. This becomes even more pronounced when the issue in question is tied to a person’s selfhood. This is where cults flourish, trying to leave the very thing that forms one’s notion of what they are is nearly impossible without a firm concept of who one is.
On the surface of it individuality takes effort. It is difficult and uncomfortable to think for oneself, to question authority, to be a rogue. However, far more energy is required to continually fit oneself into a crowd. Thoughts to the contrary must be stifled bringing tremendous cost to creativity. Being free to be what one is naturally allows one to spend valuable energy on pursuits that truly build self-esteem.
Being a grouchy curmudgeon who is chronically dissident is not the requisite to being fully individualistic. On the contrary one is fully able to love others (all others) with independence at the root of their self-image. Once the crucial selfhood is fully established independent of groupings, one is fully equipped to select the correct alliances which will bring about the life they desire. After establishing who one is, proceeding to attach the cart of associations would be prudent remembering always to put the horse of individuality in front.
The path to establishing individuality is much less rubble strewn than the one traveled by the collective of divided factions warring over who is right and wrong. The ones who are best left to decide the correct path are those individuals who allow no group to do their thinking for them.
This article did one good thing for me: it put in sharp relief how much my standards for deciding an author actually has something to say have changed after reading the usual Less Wrong articles, in particular Eliezer’s.
Move to Discussion section please. This is not written well enough for Main.
I tried doing that, but a bug didn’t let me.
...and Trike very quickly fixed the bug, so the post is now in Discussion.
This calls for a Trike post so we can upvote!
This reads like a poorly-written version of Keep Your Identity Small. But more importantly: there are no substantive claims in this post, no evidence to support your arguments, and no reason given as to why we should even value the kind of individuality you’re prescribing.
On one hand, I’m a bit sad to see someone delete their account and ragequit like that.
On the other hand, this piece was terrible and I won’t be sorry to not see another like it.
“Ragequit” is a little uncharitable. Could be mere embarassment. Unless I’m missing a rant somewhere.
Does the [deleted] mean they deleted their account; or that they tried to delete the post, but it would not delete because it already had responses?
The former. See, for example, this post.
Downvoted for the stream-of-consciousness style (and ghastly font choices).
I agreed with most of the author’s individual statements. But they weren’t part of a logical structure.
It began with the intriguing claim, “It is far more important to answer who one is than what one is”, and I kept looking for an explanation of that claim. But the author never got around to explaining what “knowing who one is” meant, or why it was important.
It was one-sided. There are advantages to identifying with a group. If the post had a point, that point could only be, “Don’t ever join a group or form bonds with others.”
Is there any way you could change the font to the default? This makes readability difficult and distracts from the page it’s on.
Thanks!
That was me.
Thanks!