How about instead of asking me "Are you a believer?" asking me "What is your spiritual understanding?" and letting me convey my experiences, thoughts, feelings, outlook, etc. in my own words. They might not, gasp, fit neatly into any recognized category or under any common label. People can't handle that?

The only time I think about it is when people ask me things like: "Are you a believer?" I don't know how to answer the question. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You could simply tell the truth and say that you haven't put much thought into it. Of course you'll then be labeled something like a 'non-thinker'.

Our minds unconsciouly categorize in this way wether we like it or not.

I am not being a post-modernist. I am not saying that labels are or are not an oppressive cultural construct. I am being pragmatic when I ask: Do most of these labels really accurately describe many of us, and wouldn't we be able to think more clearly and better understand ourselves without them? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

• I'm an old guy, but am not, and never will be a senior or senior citizen. Screw the discount.
• I am white and middle class. Seems a bit dishonorable not to acknowledge that with all it's social implications.
• I have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but I don't think of myself as bipolar or mentally ill. The only reason I can think of to do that would be to avoid responsibility for my behavior. I do take the drugs.
• I'm a liberal. I like to think my political beliefs are reasonable, moderate, and open-minded. I'm willing to discuss any political issue with anyone and work together with other people of good will, even those I disagree with strongly, to develop a consensus. Political labels often seem destructive, but I won't waffle on what I am. I don't want anyone to think I won't take responsibility for my beliefs.
• I'm not a philosopher. I'm just a guy who likes ideas and likes to think, talk, and argue about them. I'm a recreational thinker.
• My daughter's lovers are all women, but she doesn't identify as gay. She's not avoiding it, she just doesn't think about herself that way.
• I'm an engineer. I was trained as one. I've practiced as one for 30 years. My father, grandfather, brothers, and most of the adults I grew up around are all engineers. I think like an engineer and I always have. I was born an engineer.
• I'm not a serial killer. I don't care what the FBI says. I'm just a man with an unusual hobby.
• I'm a man. As the Hiphopapotamus says - "Yes, technically I am."

Generally, I've got nothing against labels. There are just a few I take to heart. Take as part of my identity - father, engineer, liberal, man. There are just a few I reject with any energy - senior citizen, bipolar, agnostic or atheist. Most I just don't think much about at all.

So, you are a non-drinking non-smoking belief transcending New Yorker with overtones of post-modernist pragmatic tendencies. OK, then, your group is meeting in suite 15-129. Lots of people for you to get to know up there.

NEXT

Labels didn't hurt Steve Miller's Joker

I'm a picker
I'm a grinner
I'm a lover
I'm a sinner
I'm a joker
I'm a smoker
I'm a mid-night toker

We have terms for things, conditions, places, people, animals, times, behaviors, landscapes, and so forth. All LABELS. I can't get along without them.

Labels reach into the most privy parts of our personalities to pin down properties that we might prefer to be left free to wander from their named corral. But if we can't name them, what can we think about, talk about, know about, do about them?

The great discovery of each homosexual is that there is a label for what he feels, and the existence of a label leads to the knowledge that he is not the only one. Homosexuals (gays) may be despised and/or damned to hell, destined for a life of aesthetic superiority, or any number of labeled fates, but at least there is a category into which they fit. The label enables a linking up of many more labels that eventually adds up to knowledge. It's axiomatic that we social animals do not want to be so unique that we don't resemble anyone else. We don't really want to be "one of a kind".

So, we label. The problem is not labelling, the problem is slipshod labelling, or the pasting on of descriptors and tags that don't correspond to the object (person, condition, color, politics, etc.). Were you to have been raised among people who practiced no religion, had no superstitions, had never heard of incorporeal beings, and were entirely innocent of doctrine, neither "believer", nor "unbeliever" would be an appropriate label. The usual labels would just not fit. You might be labeled "innocent of religion."

The problem isn't labeling, the problem is coercive labeling which might be ever after inescapable. "Felon", "terrorist", "Christ killer", "nigger", "white trash", "faggot", "retarded", "sex maniac", "criminal", "narcissistic personality disorder". Negative labels can be a burden, and mislead. But so can positive labels when misapplied: "Presidential", "genteel", "distinguished", "inspired", "brilliant", "faithful", "royal", "Christ-like" and numerous other words, negative and positive can have outsized effects. Dorothy Day (founder of the Catholic Worker Movement) said, "Don't call me a saint. I don't want to be dismissed that easily." "Saints" are too good to be true for this world. Much admired, they are quite ignorable. Incorrect positive labels can lead to abject failures.

Labels come and go from fashion. Today they are hip, tomorrow they are insulting. Political correctness says that labels should be non offensive, to race, age, gender, class, religion. But eventually any term used to specify a group will become offensive.
Hobo, bum, homeless, street dweller, rough sleeper all mean the same thing, a person with nowhere to live. But do the people that have the label attached to them care what they get called? I don't think it makes much difference to the few that I know. They mostly feel offended because no one cares about them than the names they are called.

One of the things I do find annoying is negative labeling used to describe people, not in the sense of offensive but in the sense of not applying. A non believer or non smoker seems like a stupid way to describe a person, like listing things that do not apply.

It feels like we are obsessing more and more with our differences and building more and more divisions between each other.

I'm not going to take a post-modern perspective and say that all of that obsessing and dividing is a method for manipulating, controlling, dominating, etc. people.

Just thinking about it in a practical sense, it seems like spending a lot of effort and energy on what most of the time is not really needed.

Then again, I believe that the differences between us are miniscule. Anybody who believes that the differences between us are profound probably can't empathize much with my concern.

"We're all the same", I remind myself frequently.

You could simply tell the truth and say that you haven't put much thought into it. — praxis

That would not be the truth.

Closer to the truth would be, "I believe that the box about which you are asking if I am inside or outside at best tells us very, very little about me and others and at worst does not exist".

It's axiomatic that we social animals do not want to be so unique that we don't resemble anyone else. We don't really want to be "one of a kind" — Bitter Crank

I am not convinced that the amount of resources presently spent on that regime is justified by the benefits.

I am not convinced that people would not benefit from getting in touch more with their own interiority and worrying less about what jigsaw puzzle piece they are and where in the external puzzle they fit.

Just because something is natural does not mean it is a good idea or should be a high priority.

If you’re unconvinced about our implicit associations take one of the tests at:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

And see for yourself.

Just because something is natural does not mean it is a good idea or should be a high priority. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, sure, true enough. Just because one's murderous rages are natural doesn't mean one should give free rein to them. Or just because the pie is so delicious, doesn't mean one should, therefore, eat the whole thing at one time.

On the other hand, just because something like wanting to belong is natural doesn't make it something to lament and overcome.

I am not convinced that people would not benefit from getting in touch more with their own interiority and worrying less about what jigsaw puzzle piece they are and where in the external puzzle they fit. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Of course people should know themselves more thoroughly. The unexamined life is not worth living, and all that. I am, and you, I should think, are also an inner directed person. Inner directed people generally know the territory of their interiority somewhat better than other directed folk. (One is not better than the other; different features have different advantages at different times.) Other directed folk probably get other people better than I do.

A shortage of labels makes it difficult to think clearly about one's self and about other people. One needs many pigeon holes and many labels to sort out the features of ourselves and others. "Nice guy" and "asshole" aren't quite enough categories. We are, I think, much more alike than we are different, but we are still all composed of many components. Components combine into various types of thinking and personalities. It gets complicated.

There are plenty of other labels that I find to be problematic. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree with the sentiment. For me this is largely an issue of personal style. I don't like taking labels too seriously. But I swim in the language with others. So it's good if I know how to play the game. And sometimes labels (delivered in the right tone) are good style. Even cliches are useful. Ulysses is full of cliches, intentionally. Hackneyed language is a big part of human reality. Bad poetry is the rule. It is the background against which good poetry exists.

Or would eliminating labels like "believer" and "non-believer" cause a public mental health epidemic, a poorly functioning society, and an individual and group-level existential crisis? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think we'll always have (if nothing else) euphemisms in the mouths of politicians. Differences will persist, and we are motivated to discuss these differences. For instance, labelers and non-labelers. If you started a movement to eradicate labels, you'd probably want a term for those who opposed you. If you somehow avoided this on principle, the news anchors would still need some shorthand. Categories are just too useful. I think the best we can do is be aware of the way they can limit us.

I can't even remember the last time I asked anybody about him/her and any label or category.

I can say with certainty that I have never asked anybody, "Are you gay / homosexual?"

But that is just one example.

I don't recall ever asking anybody anything like, "Are you an atheist?" or "Are you a Christian?"

See what happens when you engage in spontaneous conversation; actively listen; ask about thoughts, feelings, etc. and ask nothing about labels / categories; use the Socratic method; etc.?

How about instead of asking me "Are you a believer?" show that you respect me as an intellectual and ask, oh, "What do you think Jesus would say about this?" Asking "Are you a believer?" is kind of dehumanizing.

On the other hand, just because something like wanting to belong is natural doesn't make it something to lament and overcome. — Bitter Crank

I get it now.

It's our old friend "us vs. them".

I believe that the more we can avoid "us vs. them", the better.

I am, and you, I should think, are also an inner directed person. — Bitter Crank

Do you mean autotelic?

A shortage of labels makes it difficult to think clearly about one's self and about other people. — Bitter Crank

I don't see a shortage.

I started this thread by suggesting that we are overdoing it.

We are, I think, much more alike than we are different — Bitter Crank

I would add that we are all connected.

I suspect that a lot of this labeling and categorizing makes us forget that.

I don't think that being in tune with one's interiority means being a complete narcissist and filtering everything through one's self. I believe that it means finding what transcends the self and connects all of us.

I don't think that being in tune with one's interiority means being a complete narcissist and filtering everything through one's self. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree.

I believe that it means finding what transcends the self and connects all of us. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I'm not sure that we can transcend our selves, but we certainly can find connections.

Do you mean autotelic? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No. Inner directed people rely more on their own, developed beliefs, priorities, and self-confidence to decide what they should do. They tend not to care so much about what other people think they should do. Other directed people tend to reference their peers, authorities, social norms, and so forth to get directions about what to do next. It isn't all one or all the other. Of course, we all rely on our own sense, and the sense of the group, when we make decisions. It's a matter of emphasis.

Thoreau's man who marches to the beat of a different drummer is inner directed. The man who votes with the majority (assuming the majority will be right) is other directed. One is not more moral than the other. The independent soul and his different drummer can be terribly mistaken about their marching orders.

I started this thread by suggesting that we are overdoing it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's a matter of preference, I think, as to whether we say we use labels freely or that "we don't like to label people". I'm a labeler. I sort people, places, and things into pigeon holes. It's the way I deal with the world. I like to know who's who and what's what. Labels help me do that. The trick is using the right label. Some people are crazy. "Crazy" isn't a very good label; it's too vague. "Narcissistic personality disorder", to use a currently popular label, is much more precise. Schizophrenic" is not as precise as it sounds. Neither is "felon" or "holy man" or "mechanic". Airplane mechanic? Ship mechanic? Auto mechanic? Good mechanic?

No. Inner directed people rely more on their own, developed beliefs, priorities, and self-confidence to decide what they should do. They tend not to care so much about what other people think they should do. Other directed people tend to reference their peers, authorities, social norms, and so forth to get directions about what to do next. It isn't all one or all the other. Of course, we all rely on our own sense, and the sense of the group, when we make decisions. It's a matter of emphasis. — Bitter Crank

But do you reckon that categories work to begin with? From my experience, it is possible to move from one category to the other, so I think things can be more fluid than that. That's largely why I don't find labels that useful, since when we apply a label, we pretend that so and so can only be that way, as we have labelled them.

The independent soul and his different drummer can be terribly mistaken about their marching orders. — Bitter Crank

I think there is a difference though. The independent one seems to me to be inherently superior (not in an existential sense) to the other one, because the independent one can achieve a degree of freedom that is unavailable to the other one. In other words, he seems to have a "skill" that the other lacks. Am I wrong about this?

"Narcissistic personality disorder", to use a currently popular label, is much more precise. — Bitter Crank

Hmm I don't think such labels work very well. I think people are a lot more fluid than the labels. The labels may be pragmatically useful at various times, but they don't really tell us about who those people really are, or what they're really thinking. It just allows us, in some limited circumstances, to predict behaviour.

The labels may be pragmatically useful at various times, but they don't really tell us about who those people really are, or what they're really thinking. It just allows us, in some limited circumstances, to predict behaviour. — Agustino

So, if you don't identify and yes, label behaviors, traits, tendencies, fluidity, and all that, how is it that you eventually get to know who people "really are"?

Hmm I don't think such labels work very well. — Agustino

There are a set of labels that describe what you do for a living. I don't mean "moves fingers around on a keyboard" but rather things like "analyzes problems", "develops solutions", "identifies flaws in sub-routines" and so on. 2 or 3 labels of that sort don't cover what you do, but maybe 20 labels would.

When I say "label" I don't mean things like "stupid", unless deficiency of intelligence really is the feature being labeled. "Stupid" is a bad label because it just indicates dislike for something.

Sure, there is some fluidity in behavior, but behaviors are not so fluid that we can never guess what someone is going to do next.

The independent one seems to me to be inherently superior (not in an existential sense) to the other one, because the independent one can achieve a degree of freedom that is unavailable to the other one. In other words, he seems to have a "skill" that the other lacks. Am I wrong about this? — Agustino

The independent one is inherently superior IF he is going at being independent, and is good at charting his own course. Some mavericks who are very independent thinkers characteristically end up not getting the results they want because they are just not very good at being independent.

We couldn't have this discussion if we weren't using labels.

People like their own labels, they tend not to like the labels that get stuck to them.

So, if you don't identify and yes, label behaviors, traits, tendencies, fluidity, and all that, how is it that you eventually get to know who people "really are"? — Bitter Crank

People are not static, so I never fully know who they really are. Always learning.

Sure, there is some fluidity in behavior, but behaviors are not so fluid that we can never guess what someone is going to do next. — Bitter Crank

Depends on the circumstance. Usually, we choose to behave in a predictable manner because (1) it's easier, and (2) it makes interacting with others easier. We (or I) generally don't like people who don't behave in a predictable manner.

Some mavericks who are very independent thinkers characteristically end up not getting the results they want because they are just not very good at being independent. — Bitter Crank

I doubt it. Everything improves with practice. There were many things I wasn't supposed to be good at, and yet, I did become good at them.