<sarcasm>If you want to hire me for some graphic design work, I’m afraid that I’m booked solid for the next two years.</sarcasm>
On my post Introverts And Extraverts: Can’t We Just Get Along?, some people left comments saying they prefer not to label themselves as either an introvert or extravert. This is pretty common. Come up with a set of labels, and there are bound to be people who say they’re all of the above, none of the above, or free to change depending on the circumstances. Are labels useless? Do they do more harm than good, and should we just get rid of them?
I think labels can be harmful, but we definitely can’t get rid of them. If you’re vehemently anti-labeling, try seeing how awkward it is to communicate without them. You can’t call that furry thing a “dog” because it’s too constricting (after all, maybe he likes to meow once in a while). How do you discuss anything without labels?
But before I go all pro-labeling, let’s start with a situation where I don’t like to be labeled: politics. Whenever someone asks me if I’m a Democrat or a Republican, I have to say I’m neither. People don’t like this, and they think I’m just trying to be difficult. After all, it’s not a complicated question. There’s a continuum from the far left to the far right, and wherever you happen to fall, that determines what you are.
Democrat <————–|————–> Republican
The problem is, this left and right construct is completely artificial. The left holds an arbitrary set of unrelated beliefs, and the right holds a different arbitrary set of unrelated beliefs. How does this make sense? For example, why can’t someone hypothetically be in favor of gun control, against the separation of church and state, in favor of protecting the environment, and against the double taxation of dividends? Aren’t these issues all independent of each other?
Someone can take a test that says they’re more Democrat than Republican, but can they really call themselves a Democrat if they’re pro-life, in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska, and in favor of the Iraq war? Can these opinions really be overlooked just because they agree with the Democrats on a greater number of issues?
Furthermore, the definitions of left and right vary across countries and time periods. Abraham Lincoln was a “Republican,” but only because that’s what Democrats were called back then. So what does the label really mean?
I just don’t see why everyone should be expected to take one side or the other. In fact, slapping a political label on yourself can force you to believe in things you don’t want to. How many Republicans pretended to be in favor of the Iraq war just because they had to support their party?
But now, let’s look at a situation where a label makes perfect sense. Remember your high school chemistry? If a chemical solution has a pH of 7, it’s neutral. Lower and it’s an acid. Higher and it’s a base.
Acid <————–|————–> Base
If you want to test a solution to determine its pH, and we anthropomorphize that solution a bit, it might protest. It might say that it’s too complex to categorize, or it behaves differently in different situations, or it doesn’t need you to tell it what to do. It can flat out refuse to take the test. But that doesn’t change the fact that logically, it has to appear somewhere on this continuum. It’s either an acid, a base, or neutral, and it’s perfectly appropriate to label it as such.
Still, we can’t attach more meaning to this label than what we really know. If we know that a solution is acidic, we know that its pH is less than 7. We also know certain properties that it has, or is likely to have. But we don’t know everything about it just from this label. Milk is technically an acid, but it’s very different from 10M sulfuric acid.
So what about the labels of introvert and extravert? Are they OK?
Extravert <————–|————–> Introvert
(I’m talking about these terms as defined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, not in layman’s terms. Be sure to read The Introverts Strike Back for more on this. Also, people are still telling me I’m spelling extravert wrong–try looking it up before complaining!)
If a pure extravert gets 100% of their energy from the external world, and a pure introvert gets 100% of their energy from the internal world, then logically, everyone falls somewhere on this continuum. I know you’re a complex human being, a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma. That doesn’t change the fact that logically speaking, you must fall somewhere on this line.
And the MBTI says you have to pick one side or the other–there is no neutral. Just like when flipping a coin, it’s theoretically possible that it will land on its edge and be neither heads nor tails, but in practice it doesn’t.
Maybe this will help. Instead of calling someone an introvert, technically you’re supposed to say that they prefer introversion. Meaning that while everyone uses both introversion and extraversion, they prefer one over the other. Calling someone an introvert is simply shorthand for saying they prefer introversion to either a small or large degree, not to say that they don’t use extraversion at all.
So why don’t people want to label themselves as an introvert or extravert? I think it’s mainly because the word introvert has been tarnished in popular usage. Since introverts are outnumbered 3-1 by their more vocal counterparts, they’ve gotten the short end of the stick. The scale is often assumed to look like this:
Extravert (Party Animal) <————–|————–> Introvert (Loser)
A positive association is used for the extraverts, while a negative association is used for the introverts. So if someone’s not a party animal, they conclude that they must be a loser, and they’re told that the word for that is introvert.
But what if it were flipped?
Extravert (Airhead) <————–|————–> Introvert (Genius)
Now it’s using a positive association for the introverts and a negative association for the extraverts. If someone’s not a genius, they regretfully admit that they must therefore be an airhead, and they’re told that the word for that is extravert.
This shows how damaging labels can be, when you give people a false choice and force them to pick one. One of my main goals in writing The Introverts Strike Back was to avoid a false choice by clarifying what introvert and extravert meant in their original sense. After all, the following scale is perfectly fair and shouldn’t offend anyone.
| Extravert | <———–|———–> | Introvert |
| (gets their energy from other people) | (gets their energy from themselves) |
Another way that labels can be harmful is when you jump to conclusions. Like I said before, we have to be careful about inferring too much from a label. If a solution is acidic, we know that its pH is less than 7, but we don’t know that it will react violently with sodium hydroxide. If someone is an introvert, we know that they generally prefer introversion, but we don’t know that they’re not a successful entertainer. And I’m sure I don’t need to explain that you can’t say “Well, you’re a woman, so that means you’re good at _________ and _________, and bad at ____________.”
Labels only give us part of the picture. Whenever you meet someone, what’s the first thing they ask? Invariably, it’s “What do you do?” Somehow, in Western culture someone’s job is taken as their identity, and the rest doesn’t really matter. Yes, I work as a software developer, but that’s not important enough to go on my tombstone. Thomas Jefferson’s job as President apparently wasn’t important enough to go on his tombstone either (it reads: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia”). Tim Ferriss sometimes tells people he’s a drug dealer if he just wants to avoid this question that really doesn’t matter.
Well-balanced people don’t necessarily want to be told that they are their job, or they are their religion, or they are their ethnicity, etc. There’s nothing inherently wrong with using labels for the right reason, but don’t expect people to be thrilled if you reduce their entire identity to one.
I think the key with using labels is not to avoid them, but to take care in applying and interpreting them. And if you really insist on not being labeled, that’s OK. We can always call you by whistling instead.
I don’t mind being labeled. I think some level of generalization is needed in life. I also think that most people are in fact aware that there is a spectrum for most things, and even if you are labeled one way or the other, it doesn’t mean that you are 100% that way. Life is not black and white… most intelligent adults are aware of that.
Vereds last blog post..Happy, Then Not
I also don’t mind being labeled… as long as it the correct label ;-0)
Sometimes, our yard stick can get a bit off and we judge people too quickly or may be or past experiences lead us to do so.
Shamelle
Shamelles last blog post..Expectations: Is It A Human Weakness?
Like Vered, I couldn’t care less what others label me under.
As long as I strive to behave both positively and consistently in all my interactions with people, I’m happy with however I’m described. That part is outwith my control.
Labels, however, are destructive when we don’t give others the chance to break free of them.
There’s a fine line between ‘labelling’ someone and trapping them in a ’stereotype’
Stereotyping can easily become very negative indeed.
Labels come from descriptions, which are necessary for communication. But there are definitely lots of areas in life where it is unnecessary to label others or ourselves. The politics thing I really don’t get and I don’t think we are as stringent here in Australia. We have an increasing number of swinging voters here and so I think rigid voting patterns are becoming a thing of the past in Australia. But then we also ahve a different electoral system too.
One thought I have is that if we were 100% comfortable with the entirety of who we are, we wouldn’t care how people labeled us because it would be their problem, not ours. We would know all our intricacies and not feel a need for “favourable” labels from others.
Kelly
Hi Hunter,
Labels can be destructive, especially when applied to children. Call a child “shy” (introvert) and they begin to believe that. Call a child a “loser, good for nothing…”, and they often grow up without direction. But, call a child a “star” or “outstanding” or any other positive affirmation, and they often excel.
I don’t mind that people label me, as I believe labels are used as an easy “description” of a person’s personality. It’s when we start labeling negatively that we can harm someone.
Barbara Swaffords last blog post..Psssst! Your Blog Is Showing
I just wrote a post about labeling each other last week. It didn’t go into so much detail as yours, but was along the same lines. Labeling people can be a very destructive behavior. Especially if we do it without knowing the other person.
So much of our culture these days depends on “the looks”. These are all labels. Who has the sexiest body, who drives the fastest car and so on. Labeling people like that is creating a nation (or world) of disrespect for each other by judging people on their looks instead of their soul.
I’m definitely not for labels, but I do understand that sometimes they can’t be avoided.
-ohm
Ohm – Simp.lis.tic Zens last blog post..The Perfect Moment
Good morning Hunter. There’s a link on this morning’s post. Happy Monday.
Writer Dads last blog post..The Great Equalizer
I guess people who want to be above labels are sort of like Prince when he was “the artist formerly known as Prince” (and his name was some sort of symbol). I believe he’s back to being “Prince”, although I don’t really follow these things. Life is easier when you give people labels, I just think we have to be very careful not to attach derogatory connotations to labels (such as: he belongs to this ethnic group, therefore he must be lazy).
Marelisas last blog post..The Elasticity of Time (Part 3)
I pretty much agree with what Barbara said. Labels can be destructive for a child. I wouldn’t want my kids to attach themselves to a fixed label. Attachment is food for the ego.
@ Vered, I wasn’t sure how you’d feel about this, and I’m glad you agree. Life’s not black and white, but some people seem to insist on not even being labeled as gray!
@ Shamelle, fair enough, we’ll only use the correct label for you! Maybe one problem is that some people use a yardstick while others use a meterstick, so they’re a bit off.
@ Scott,
“There’s a fine line between ‘labelling’ someone and trapping them in a ’stereotype’”
Very true. From your comment on Barbara’s blog today, we know that you were on The Weakest Link. Now, if we get in the habit of always saying “you ARE the weakest link, goodbye,” that could be damaging if we don’t let you escape it!
@ Kelly, that’s true–if we’re mislabeled, that’s the other person’s problem, not ours. Let’s face it, most of us will be misunderstood by plenty of people, and we don’t have time to explain ourselves to everyone. On the other hand, it’s unfortunate if someone labels us wrong, and then someone else hears that label and just assumes it’s true.
@ Barbara, good point. Kelly said that we shouldn’t care about being mislabeled if we’re 100% comfortable with who we are, but kids are still trying to find out who they are, and so labeling them can be destructive. You’ve given me an idea for a post.
@ Ohm, I guess there are only so many labels like “sexiest” and “fastest” to go around. If you’re not one of the few to get a label like this, it can make you feel a lot worse than it should. People do tend to judge others by their looks, don’t they?
@ Writer Dad, thanks, I’ll check it out!
@ Marelisa, the last I heard, he was back to Prince! I agree, let’s stay away from the derogatory connotations.
@ Evelyn, what about nice labels like “angel?”
@ Hunter True, though technically you couldn’t say that as I won the show.
That time, I was the “Strongest Link”!
@ Scott, that changes everything, doesn’t it? But now you have a different label…the strongest link!
Society expects labels and strong opinions. It’s how we interact with each other. We’re taught labeling from pre school on. For example: Don’t talk to that guy, he eats his boogers! He’s a booger eater! I think where we have to separate ourselves from single celled organisms is in our ability to label or be labeled but not disregard who we know ourselves to be.
Hi Hunter – this is powerful stuff. I loved the way you highlighted the importance of the way we actually apply labels. That is definitely important.
I’ll be the first to admit – labels truly suck – especially when it comes to illnesses – particularly mental health issues, or child illnesses such as Attention Deficit Disorder or Dyspraxia.
But, I guess labels are a necessary evil, as they allow the majority to have a basic understanding of people without delving too deeply. But at the same time, they’re dangerous because they can lead people to make assumptions about folk who fall under a particular label. And the truth is, most people just aint the same.
Cath Lawsons last blog post..Legacies, Links, Bad Ads And Puker Powder
@ T, yes, we should definitely aspire to separate ourselves from single celled organisms!
@ Cath, illness labels can be very bad, because people often don’t understand the illness very well. Like if you have to explain that you can’t catch ADD by kissing! Well, that’s not a real example, but people often have misconceptions of what people with an illness can and can’t do, or whether they pose any threat.
[...] my post Don’t Label Me!, I talked about whether or not labeling is a good thing. I said that despite their bad reputation, [...]
[...] blog post, Don’t Label Me!, is a must [...]
Excellent post.
I watched a film by Eckhart Tolle recently in which he asked you to imagine the world if you didn’t have a name. Close your eyes and try it, it’s quite interesting.
Look forward to seeing your future posts Hunter
Glen Allsopps last blog post..What Message would you Leave before you Die?
@ Glen, yeah, I tried it and it’s weird. Another weird thing is that I found myself talking face to face with my blogging friends in my imagination, forgetting that I don’t know them in real life.
Hi Hunter,
Definitely a thoughtful post with some great examples. (Great comments here too!)
It’s been a couple years since I read Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, but I found his arguments interesting in regards to his concept of thin-slicing–that creating generalizations is part of how we handle the information overload with which we’re bombarded.
We’re always quick to take short-cuts (and it’s probably what allows us to function), so I don’t think labeling and categorizing will go away any time soon, but there’s no denying that many labels (especially applied to people) carry negative connotations that can be downright dangerous.
When you get down to it, every war in history has been based on us vs. them. If we couldn’t label them, how would we know who to fight?
Lindsays last blog post..Why Google Adsense is a Perfect Way for Writers to Make Money
@ Lindsay, I haven’t read that book, but it seems to make sense. Without any generalizations at all, how could we possibly function?
As for war, some people would argue that there is no us vs. them, that we’re all the same, and we shouldn’t fight anyone. I think it depends. I don’t think the U.S. needs to launch an us vs. them war against Canada, but in WWII it was important to make sure we were fighting the right people.