Keep your identity small... within reason
Effective altruism, neuroticism, and labels
Paul Graham has an essay from 2009 titled, "Keep Your Identity Small." The basic idea is that, if we want to engage with the world as whole and nuanced people capable of evolution and growth, we should be wary of tying our self-concepts to specific labels. I've found this to be an immensely helpful shorthand for reminding myself that I'm interested in truth and ideas, not necessarily white-knuckle gripping specific identifiers.
But to be clear, I also do identify with labels. As a human being, I find it useful to ground and communicate my identity with familiar terms. I view myself through lots of lenses: sister, friend, partner, woman, practically bisexual but spiritually lesbian, daughter, feminist, clay-enjoyer, event planner, emotionally sensitive, effective altruist, and more. Some parts of my identity I hold loosely, some protectively, some lovingly, some practically—and within each exists complexity, dissent, and individuality.
Recently, I've been reflecting on the neuroticism I see surrounding identity, effective altruism, and the infamous "EA brand." I think a recent EA Forum April Fool's post from Anna and Emma cuts right to an important point: desperately trying to "keep your identity small" with exhausting vigilance and constant qualifiers misses the spirit of Graham's warning. The goal isn't to have no labels or to strip your label like it's on fire when negative op-eds start rolling in. The goal is to trust yourself to see those labels clearly for what they mean to you, rise above them when needed, and remain open to the complexity of the world. To feel comfortable saying: yes, I identify with x, and I can explain why, but I'm also a nuanced person and I’m open to change. The goal is for labels to feel fluid—something you're capable of contending with, not something you either desperately cling to or rebuke entirely. And yes, some people will criticise you or pass judgment or whatever it is. Some people will not listen to the individuality you try and assert. That's okay. Stand for your labels anyway, when they are true to you.
This is why I am very happy saying I'm an effective altruist. Because, right now, I am. To be very clear: this isn’t a brave thing to say, not by any means. However, the current discourse within EA and the anxiety surrounding “the brand” can sometimes make it feel like I’m borderline coming out again. And then, I have to reality check myself. EA is the space I work in, a community I am happily integrated in, and it is a term that accurately communicates many of my values surrounding impartiality, prioritisation, and my current approach to philanthropy. And if I felt that, one day, effective altruism no longer accurately described these things about me, I would let the label go. And this wouldn't shatter my sense of self or leave me without purpose, it would simply be a natural progression, a sweater that doesn't fit anymore. And so, I encourage people to stay grounded in what they believe: be comfortable leaving your labels behind, but also, wearing them when they fit. And trust yourself to navigate those labels, even when people on the internet are mean.
Really wise post, but I expect no less from Frances. It hits the nail on the head.
Myself, I have become with age really weary and suspicious of ideological labels, but this is mostly an overreaction from my early memetic capture by some and the great difficulties I had breaking away from them. So now I overcompensate by something like Ord's Moral Uncertainty applied more generally to ideas and beliefs: I can't commit too much to any or let them determine who I am (attachment style: commitment averse).
You can only do this with some labels, though, and to some degree. Some really are tied with our self-perceptions and self-esteem and painful to renounce. One I can feel I can probably stick to permanently is that of a truth-seeker and an incredibly curious person.
On the EA front, I discovered the movement relatively late in life (3 years ago, already in my forties). I stick to the classical 'EA Adjacent' not so much because of avoiding fall-back (I mean, I started to get into EA after learning about it through the FTX fiasco, so how worse can it get?), but just because after some years of reading and thinking, there are important aspects of EA I agree and feel comfortable with, and others I don't.
This is accurate! And I think the reason it holds is that the original Paul Graham essay is a pretty flawed final product, that just happened to be memifiable enough to serve as a schelling point for an attitude.
I reviewed it here, also explaing my own preferred stance on identity:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dylanrichardson/p/neither-small-nor-broad-identity?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=rj6jj