“There’s two kinds of people in the world; Those who think people can be divided up into two types, and those who don’t.”
Groucho Marx
I have a conflicted relationship with labels. On one hand, they’re efficient at communicating information quickly. At their best, they help us understand complex issues with insight and clarity. But they mislead us as well.
To the lazy observer, a label is a quick way to over-simplify something rich and multi-faceted. It tempts us to believe that those who hold the label are the same – a homogonous group, tidily summarized by a single word.
At the root of the issue are two very human tendencies – pattern recognition and tribalism.
Our language is a form of expression, but also a filter through which we structure our thoughts. The words available to label our ideas often encourage us to frame concepts in binary terms – hot or cold, good or bad. We seek to distill our understanding of the world into simple patterns that can be recognized and recalled with a single word. The tendency toward pattern recognition is our super-power, allowing us to master outlandishly complex concepts by simplifying the component parts. But it is also our greatest weakness.
Combining a reductive approach to concepts with deeply ingrained social tendencies creates the risk for great abuse. As strong as we feel perched atop the current food chain, it’s not our sharp minds or sturdy bodies we should be thanking. Most of us, if stranded alone in the wilderness, would struggle to survive – much less thrive. It’s our ability to form complex social bonds and use them for partnership that allows us to tackle fiercer threats and ultimately dominate the planet.
The tribe is stronger than the individual – and that strength rests on a tenuous foundation of trust. But trust makes us vulnerable, and those that abuse the tribe’s trust for personal gain often create great harm in the process. History is filled with examples of ambitious individuals that betray the trust of society for personal gain, destroying countless lives in the process.
Collaboration is a tenuous balance, and we need look no farther than our own bodies to observe the delicate equilibrium in action. Trillions of individual cells come together to form organs and systems that coordinate at scale to create the miraculous experience we know as life. Within this great cooperation are armies of cells that identify and neutralize threatening intruders – and with good reason. Opportunistic organisms cleverly learn to hijack our bodies’ resources to multiply and grow their own kingdoms. Cancers and dictators all eventually meet the same fate, but they kill their hosts in the process. Survival, at many scales, requires a constant process of sorting which entities are partners and which are threats.
All of this to say there is a very natural tendency to collaborate, yet to do so cautiously (even fearfully). There is our tribe in which trust has been established through time and shared rituals – and then there are the “others”. We struggle to empathize with others. We find it easy to fear and justify atrocities in the name of pre-emptive defense. We forget that the pain, the love, and the rich tapestry of emotions they feel is just like our own. Our convenience and ambition feel so pressing. When their features, language, and customs appear to be different, our pattern recognition is fooled into believing that their emotions and experiences are also somehow different than our own.
Herein lies the fundamental challenge. An immune response that is too week or ineffective allows the body to be taken over, but too great a response causes the body destroys itself fighting threats in every corner.
The same is true for societies – and potentially all complex systems. Throughout human history our labels have simultaneously been the source of tremendous good and tremendous evil. Labels have galvanized cooperation that led humanity to improve the experiences of billions of lives – but have also been used to justified atrocities on an unimaginable scale. They help us band together to fight abuses while simultaneously planting the seeds for the next round of callous indifference. The twentieth century saw the use of labels help galvanize a civil right movement that helped improve the lives of millions, while at the same time using labels to justify fighting that ended the lives of millions.
So how are our minds to make sense of labels?
For those who organized information before computers, folders were the default approach. Everything similar went in the same folder, and the folder received a tidy label. As personal computers emerged on every desk, the folder paradigm carried over into our digital lives. We categorized by giving the document a name, placing it in a folder, and remembering the taxonomy that would allow us to later find that specific branch on the tree.
It was years until that approach gave way to a better model. Faster processing and digital indexing allowed search to emerge as an alternative to rigid folder structures. Want to find your tax returns? Simply type the form number or the word ‘tax’ – and search will return the file as part of a set of recommended result.
In such an environment, a new model for labels emerges. Labels can still be useful as a quick way to find and group information, but many different labels (or tags) can now be applied simultaneously. It breaks the notion that we need a single label to define the boundary of a concept. It no longer needs to be this or that – it can be both – and thus understood more fully.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”
Albert Einstein
With this frame of reference, I propose a new model for how we use and contextualize our own labels – helping us be more mindful in how we use them to represent ourselves and others.
- Don’t pick just one. A single label in not sufficient to understand anything fully. The map is not the territory. When drawn accurately and with the right detail for the purpose, it can be tremendously valuable. But to say anything clearly, maps must omit nearly everything about the actual environment. Trust only reliable cartographers and choose the correct map for the journey. If we’re ever tempted to view people through the lens of a single label, that should be siren that leads us to proceed with caution.
- Choose your labels carefully. Not all labels are created equal. If we want to express something about ourselves to others – or understand others through a label – we should be cautious in the labels we choose. Labels that represent physical attributes (white, short, thin, unattractive) have little to do with the preferences or belief systems that commonly define our sense of self. Muslim, Capitalist, or “music-lover” might tell us more about specific beliefs – even though those also paint with broad strokes. Be aware that belief systems evolve over time.
- Be cautious with correlations. If you know that I drive a truck, can you guess my gender, race and musical preferences? Watch the gap between guessing and “knowing”. Our pattern recognizing brains take great pride in recognizing trends and can give greater weight to information that confirms our theories. Correlations exist, but few of us are good at understanding them objectively. A deeper understanding of probability and statistics would help human’s better understand their own predictive biases and use labels more cautiously (and effectively).
- Labels are better trend-explainers than individual-predictors. Anyone who has looked at a stock chart knows that it is far easier to explain what happened in the past than to confidently predict what will happen in the future. There is value in studying the past and using labels to make sense of major trends. But individual reactions and results are far harder to predict. People who identified as Christian may have, on average, voted a particular way in the last election – but how any individual Christian will vote in the next election takes far more information to predict. Even with more information, our prediction may be wrong. Successful traders carefully track their predictions to learn from mistakes and improve results. Successful humans should do the same – and know when accurate prediction is not possible.
- Most importantly, be willing to transcend labels. I have a race label, a gender label, and multiple belief and preference labels. I could easily use these labels to define the boundary of my tribe.
But despite our many differences, would I not be better served aligning my sense of tribe with my fellow countrymen. If pressed, I’d lay down my life for the principles I believe we all share. Maybe that’s a better boundary to draw?
Or maybe I view my kinship extends more broadly to those who share a core belied in personal freedom. Am I willing to extend my tribe to those outside my nation who share that core value?
Perhaps I should simply adopt the much wider human label. But then again, I share this world with more than humans. Are other living creatures’ part of my concern – or can I safely “other” them in pursuit of my human goals? Do I owe anything to plants and insects that share my ecosystem? Are they somehow also part of my tribe? What exactly are we and where does that barrier between us and them truly sit?
I can’t answer these broader questions for you, but I encourage you to consider them. History shows us countless examples of how labels both help and hurt us (whomever that ‘us’ may happen to be). As with most things, there is peril in the extremes and opportunity in the pursuit of balance. There is much we can learn from our ability to structure and categorize the world around us – but part of our learning should be wisdom on when labels out-live their purpose.
The world is a rich and wonderful place. We’d be devasted if it ever became as simple as we often wish it to be. If it all starts to feel too obvious, there’s a good chance we’re lost.
Go forth with caution – and empathy.
You are my tribe. I’m sure we’ll find our way.
Tiny Clarity 