Oddbean

Thanks for the question. I define it negatively as in NOT bureaucratic identity. Legal identity for example is a form of bureaucratic identity. How you ‘see’ your neighbours and how they ‘see’ you is part and parcel of human identity processes for example.

I see, but identity is a mental construct that refers to real entities (although this is already subjective). A digital identity is the digital artifact of such a construct. A bureaucratic identity is, analogously, the administrative artifact. My neighbor's face is not part of the identity. It is part of the reality to which an identity refers. Incidentally, the identity that I assign to him based on my perception does not require a general discussion, as it is not a general phenomenon. In my view, there is no such thing as a human identity, at least not in a way that is meaningfully comparable to a digital or bureaucratic identity. The conceptual crux of identity is how it can be firmly and verifiably linked to real events as a mental construct, despite the definitional vagueness, the change of things over time, the susceptibility to errors of real implementation of corresponding systems, etc.

It’s your prerogative to believe there’s no such thing as human identity. Nevertheless, dozens of disciplines under the collective names of the humanities and social sciences have varying definitions of human identity that are weaved into their varying attempts to understand society, to understand our species, with some underlying hope that we might improve the conditions for human flourishing and the web of life of which we are part. Digital identity has quite different history and purpose and is not in its current forms at least ready to substitute for human identity processes healthily. Nevertheless, it is now encroaching on those domains, leading to pure social outcomes. We need to (meta)design better.

Apols if i don’t quite get or address the point. What i do know about identity after all these years is that it means different things to different people in different contexts. And that’s not an ideal place to start 😆

Actually *that* is what I meant. 😄 There are functionally very different types (and therefore definitions) of identity. I’d differentiate the ones serving (self-)definitory purpose (“who am I in relation to others?”) from this which serve a transactional purpose (“how can others know I (still) am who I claimed to be?”). You’re right. That plurality of definitions and functions is an “interesting” point to start. 😄