Paul Graham did end up with a similar conclusion, but on the process of leading to it, he kept exploring possibilities. What social behaviors could be objectively explained by the excess of identity? Although he did end up telling his readers what to do, that was just a coincidence. He looked out for the truths and they happen to lead to something that could be applied in real life.
But it all comes down to a matter of taste, and I do greatly admire Paul Buchheit as a person.
Sorry, but here you just klll in the egg your interesting point above. If you think pg's article is better than pb's, why hide your opinion, which I happen to share, behind this pudic relativist curtain?
It's like doing a solid dissertation on why Python is more x and x and x than, say, Java, and then, in the conclusion, retract every statement behind a shy "matter of taste".
Well, you've just been shown the opposite. By dismissing your own argument - by claiming it is just a matter of random, arbitrary preference - you kind of write yourself out of the conversation. I guess you are less likely to offend, but you're less likely for anyone to listen at all. You may as well have not spoken in the first place.
I like both essays, though. It's hard to describe why, but they each affected me in different ways. PG's is more a detached observation about how he thinks things are, while "I am nothing" has a sort of visceral quality that appeals to me.
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.
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html