I feel like Graham's almost right, but drops the ball when he says this: I agree with him that discussions about religion and politics are often shouting matches because it's a part of one's identity. People become irrationally defensive / offensive when their identity is questioned. But it'd be a terrible idea to use that as a reason to avoid such a debate. A lot of other things are a big(ger) part of my identity: my upbringing, my travels, my education. Should I avoid talking about these topics? Besides, I don't think it's even possible to detach yourself from your identity. It's inherently interwoven.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.
Perhaps he should say -- Keep Your "Identity" Small -- and then be clearer on parts of identity that create fuzzy thinking. I agree, veen, that "identity" is created from all of our experiences. I also agree with Graham that our "identity" should not be too rooted in a whole lot of "beliefs". Examining one's assumptions is quite difficult to do, because the assumptions are built on other assumptions. These might be derived from cognitive biases and illogical arguments. Is the question: "Who are you?" the same question as "What do you believe?" - I'm not sure it is. Is "What do you believe" the same question as "What are you certain of?"When asked to explain his success, Arno Penzias, 1978 Nobel Prize winner for physics, said "Change starts with the individual. So the first thing I do each morning is ask myself, 'Why do I strongly believe what I believe?' Constantly examine your own assumptions." from "The Art of Powerful Questions" (see www.theworldcafe.com toolkit)