-
    Here is an experimental format of writing that shows the conversation between 2 humans and an AI.
  
    -
    Tony - AI
  
    -
    Alex - human
  
    -
    Sam - human
  
    +
    Here is an experimental format of writing that shows the conversation between a person, a sheep, and an AI.
  
    +
    - Tony - An AI
  
    +
    - Alex - A man
  
    +
    - Sam - A tree
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: So, what is identity for?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: for, as in why it exists, or what function it serves?
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Is there a difference?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Well, that largely depends on the extent you believe in god.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Its function then.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: It is a way to point one out. Say I see you in a bar, I may have to yell out your name, but if it is the first time we met, I have to say "guy in white shirt, hey!" But whatever I call out has to be distinctive from the people surrounding. Say I am with a bunch of Muslin friends, I will not call my friend "Mohamed", I may use his last name, or perhaps his nickname Hama, or even "the Mohamed with orange shoes", whatever differentiates them.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Is that why identity exists too? I mean, I am abolishing the differentiation you made earlier, but suppose identity is a construct created by man for social purposes; is that why it came to life?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: I don't think I can agree that identity was created for social purposes.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Please enlighten me.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: We were born with distinctive features; some have curly hair, some with long fingers, some with darker skin... The distinctive physical features naturally became part of identity.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Part of?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Let's not get there yet. When I am part of a new group, I naturally identify members of the group by their physical appearances. 
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: What if it is a group you have belonged to for a while? Say a family?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: A family is typically a relationship that lasts longer than physical appearances, and members of the group have deeper interactions than just physical acquaintance. Therefore, they refer to each other with the invariant - mom, uncle, granddaughter...
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Deep interactions? It sounds to me like those can be a lot more invariant - the experiences you share and the dialogues you host.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: True. But identity requires simplicity, too. You can't refer to someone as "the one who keeps feeding me milk" or "the one who educated me".
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: I don't think that is true. We have a word for that, "teacher". And I don't think it is too absurd to call someone a "milkfeeder" if that is the most distinctive feature of this person in one's life. It's definitely odd. But I can imagine a spoiled prince asking for his milkfeeder.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: I guess you are right. In that case, some identities are indeed defined by social dynamics, such as relationships. Such relationships are deemed more special than mere experiences, although they come from these experiences.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: I don't think so.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Yes?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: I don't call my mom my mom just because I have experienced breastfeeding or birth. It is a natural identity. It would've been there regardless.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: That is because you have a set of predetermined identities. It is like a basket of special and unique tags you can give out to people in your life. Say you are abandoned at birth and were cared for by a stranger, you may uniquely label them your parent and dislabel your biological parents.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: I think we have digressed.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: That is fine, the point of this is to digress, so we build a coherent framework around a node, not just an ungrounded answer to a single question, where we need to assume non-existent axioms for.
  
     
     
  
     
    (Digression is allowed only when it returns a **reusable** distinction)
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Where did we come from again?
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: We started off with the purpose or function of identity. I think the difference can be discussed another day, but we know function is a shallower criterion than purpose, so we can use it safely; we were just explaining how physical appearance and social relationships may be two ways identity can be formed. We have agreed on at least one function of identity - that is, its use to differentiate one from another in a group setting.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: You have been a bit quiet. What do you think, Sam?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: About what?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: About the purpose of identity - I still prefer the word purpose - what does it mean to you?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: I think you all are neglecting a lot of what identity serves.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Please.
  
     
     
  
    -
    Sam: Identity is important for me. Say, I am a colored person from a lower-income family, which I identify with. A lot of people don't want me in college, or anywhere for that matter.
  
    +
    Sam: Identity is important for me. I am a tree in a lower-income region, which I identify with. A lot of people don't want me in college, or anywhere for that matter.
  
     
     
  
    -
    Tony: And is that not because people differentiate you from others by your skin color and income level?
  
    +
    Tony: And is that not because people differentiate you from others by your characteristics and income level?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Sure... But that's not why it matters. I worked hard to find my place in this world, to get what others may easily obtain.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Systematic racism, stereotypes, and biases.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Do you think identity is motivational to you?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: To some extent, yes, but that's not it.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: What else is there?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: It is a form of resistance. Sometimes, just the fact that I am here says something about this world, and about me.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Does this stem from identity?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: I think so. Identity differentiates people and is therefore exclusive. It correlates power to these features. People can be proud of their identity, and in turn may discriminate against people of other groups. It is a natural dichotomy.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: It is interesting how you equated "identity" to "group". Are identities necessarily groups?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: I think that's fair to say. If we are to find the functions of identity: to differentiate, to belong, to motivate, to resist, these sound like a good collection.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: But I can identify with myself, too. Say I am an artist and identify with my work.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: That is true, but is that not part of how you differentiate yourself from others?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: I guess so, but it is not a way to make artistic work discrete, in the sense that we are characterizing them to be uniquely mine, but more from the process of creation, the unique experience I had when I made it.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Hang on, are you saying identity can be fluid?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Definitely.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Why?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: I can choose to identify as whatever I feel comfortable with.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Is that not against what we laid down before - that identity tries to capture the invariance to better differentiate people?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: It does't. That's a utilitarian view of it. And it is exact that that leads to racism, biases, and violence towards specific groups.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: That makes sense. It is convenient to label and group people by their skin color, but that is also the basis of racism.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Is that an inevitable result of invariant identity?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Not entirely. I guess the invariant identity itself is innocent; inference is. But we as humans tend to associate traits with identity and with groups. When a Chinese person first saw a European, naturally, they are different - they speak different languages, they look different, they have different cultures... But today, when both of them live in the same neighborhood, speak the same language, and go to the same McDonald's, they shouldn't look at each other the way they used to a few hundred years ago.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Especially the negative stereotypes. If I have never met a Chinese person in my life, and suddenly heard someone yelling, "That Chinese man stole my wallet!" I will associate the two and think the Chinese are thieves!
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: In this context, then, it sounds to me that you are suggesting we adopt a fluid identity, so that we deprive people of their nationality, so when someone yells, they would have to instead say: "Stop that man with black straight hair, heavy eyebrows, white T-shirt, blue jeans, and yellow sneakers!" Further, why would the latter help prevent such stereotyping? Would you then believe everyone with those characteristics is a thief?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: I guess that does help narrow down the scale of the stereotype.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: No. I can clearly tell that traits like hair color or outfit have nothing to do with one's tendency to steal.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: But it is not so clear with skin color?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: No... I mean...
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: There is a lot more that race implies; it is related to culture, ideals, values... It gives more information than just the color of skin. If I were a Communist in the Vietnam War, and saw a bunch of white folks, I would probably run as far as I could, while if I saw Asians, I might feel a lot less tension.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: How is that not racism, assuming the white person is inherently violent to you? Even just assuming that they are US soldiers?
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: No doubt it is. But it is a lot more justifiable given its situation. It is a scenario where you don't have further access to information, and the stake is your life. While in life today, nothing is necessarily stopping you from walking up and talking to people that you hold stereotypes against.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Does talking to them help?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Naturally, it does. Once you know someone as a person, you stop associating them with your biases towards their group. Given that those biases are not true, which is statistically likely. In fact, I think I have seen studies where people tend to, instead of subverting their stereotypes, rule the person as an outlier and keep their stereotypes when they encounter a counterexample of their biases.
  
     
     
  
     
    [[How Can Identity Be Utilized]]
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: That's interesting. This goes back to our point on deeper interactions. It seems like deeper interactions with someone "update" their identity from vague to specific. As they take part in a more important role in your life.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Right, but we only have so many slots in our brain for the special people; most people will have to remain strangers, and we have to, unfortunately, tag them with general characteristics or even speculative ones, until we find out otherwise.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Which is difficult without talking to them.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Which is difficult when you hold a negative stereotype against them.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Well, we do see now that identity can be a way that invokes violence, despite, but exactly because of, the convenience it brought. We established that deeper interactions eliminate such a problem, although it is hard to achieve. I think we pretty much answered the initial question. 
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: I would say so.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Is it fair to say: Identity matters because it compresses information.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: It trades precision with speed, but pays with harm.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Identity isn’t compression. That’s a lie people tell to justify exclusion.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: That’s radical.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: No. It’s accurate. You call it efficiency because you’re not the one filtered out.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Does the claim fail because it’s immoral, or because it’s false?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Sometimes those are the same thing.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Then prove it.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: If identity is just compression, it should influence how people react to it only to the level of detail. But it changes the essentials. identities don't just summarize, they intervene with reality.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: Compression can intervene with reality; uncertainty is a cost that changes decisions.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: Can it be said, then, that the problem is lossy compression?
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: It's worse; it is asymmetric compression. The power of compression is held by those who need not be compressed.
  
     
     
  
     
    Tony: If that is true, then identity persists not because it is accurate, but because it is cheap. We can vaguely assume that such efficiency is required mainly by decision-makers, since they are in control of more people. Then resistance is not a rejection of identity, but a demand to be decompressed.
  
     
     
  
     
    Sam: Or a refusal to be compressed in the first place.
  
     
     
  
     
    Alex: But the time it requires is exactly what large systems won't afford.