Comment Identity (Score 1) 209
Identity is clearly the focal point of this discussion. Do we admit the existence of polylithic identities, or do we insist that all of a single person's persona be linkable to their physical selves? The nymwars turned on this questions. I'd like to point out a comment by Jaron Lanier in the Q&A section of http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker:
"I'd like to hypothesize one civilizing force, which is the perception of multiple overlapping hierarchies of status. I've observed this to be helpful in work dealing with rehabilitating gang members in Oakland. When there are multiple overlapping hierarchies of status there is more of a chance of people not fighting their superior within the status chain. And the more severe the imposition of the single hierarchy in people's lives, the more likely they are to engage in conflict with one another. Part of America's success is the confusion factor of understanding how to assess somebody's status."
And I think this observation answers in the affirmative to the value of polylithic identity. Naturally, the above is anecdotal, and I am unaware of more rigorous studies, but statements to the effect of "...if you have nothing to hide" routinely spouted by generally privileged, non-minority, center-of-the-bell-curve folk grossly disregard the fact of the diversity of experience that people have (even themselves, if examined honestly).
Ohm's Database of Ruin spells the collapse of the carefully nurtured identities that people have created. This may certainly lead to violence and barbarism if Lanier's hypothesis holds, all in the name of profit, bureaucratic efficiency, and laziness.
