It’s quite treacherous to identify yourself with labels: introvert, extrovert, conscientious, conservative, liberal, empathetic, neurodivergent, etc.
The act of putting a name on some traits that you have can seem liberating: I finally know what I am, and why I’m different from others, and that’s fine.
On the flipside, once you commit to a label, you lock yourself inside it, and instead of describing, it begins shaping what you are.
It doesn’t help that other people often try very hard to pin us down and assign labels to us forcefully, without considering if we’re OK with that.
The trick is to describe your behavior and separate that from yourself. Instead of being an introvert you can just say that my behavior was introverted, and that was a function of my internal psychological state.
Also, be open to experimenting with what affects that state, and reflect on it. That will remind you that you’re not a constant, you’re a function :)
Or, labeling yourself helps identify communities and systems that enable you to develop and grow more efficiently.
I'm autistic, I discovered this partway through my adult life. Labelling it has done incredible things to build support infrastructure. I have more energy and less stress now.
I'm queer, I discovered this as a young adult. It's connected me with whole communities. And most importantly, it's helped me discover and embrace the concept of a found family.
I'm a leftist. (Not a liberal, I don't vote Democrat). This label has helped me find opportunities to engage in mutual aid I genuinely find more rewarding than any charity work I've done.
Every time I add a label, I discover wonderful communities who help me explore myself, help me figure out what it means to be that label, and whether it's one I want to keep or shed.
There's nothing wrong with building an identity. You have to have introspection and periodically evaluate it, but labels are fine.
That’s like saying it’s treacherous to lock a door. After all, you might lose the key!
I label myself in many ways. These labels are heuristics that define me to myself as well as others. These labels simplify the management of my life in a way similar to choosing a particular type of computer or a particular email client does.
I am free to change my labels, but there is a cost to that. There is also a cost to avoiding labels.
I wouldn’t say it is a treacherous matter at all. It’s a matter of personal economy and finding a comfortable way to relate to the world.
I have sometimes used your heuristic of labeling behavior rather than identity. That can be useful, too. But however you try to do that, an implication hangs in the air: “You are obviously the kind of person who does things like that.”
I was diagnosed with dyslexia in my 40s. It's helped me understand why I struggle with certain tasks. Overall having a label has been a net positive.
I'm hesitant to share my diagnosis with colleagues. I've been able to develop coping mechanisms and I feel like it doesn't impact my day-to-day. I don't want to cause disruption for those around me. I do have a friend with much more severe dyslexia and she does get the help she needs to be productive.
I wish we could discuss these labels at work without baggage. It's all about consideration. Forcing everyone around you to change their behaviour around you to make yourself feel more comfortable is not being considerate. On the flip side enforcing strict working policies that prevent people from participating in the workplace is also not considerate.
Didn't expect to see EGS used as a reference here...
There's a kinda funny extra level to labels and preconceived notions in that one: "sister" is a cover story for his female duplicate who was created from a tech/magic mishap early in that comic.
Neurodivergence is a really useful concept in that it recognises that "typical" just means a certain cognitive profile. The problem I expect is that in certain fields (STEM?) it's actually more normal to be divergent from the mainstream. If you understand how your particular neural profile makes you understand and experience the world, you are in a good position to understand how it might be different to others.
In a sense, attaching a special label to a particular neurodivergent profile is as problematic as assigning special significance to the "neurotypical" profile.
As I've grown older I realize I'm all of the labels at different times of the day, different days, with different people etc. The more I take this to heart the more I grow and allow myself to have new experiences that a self label would have stopped me from doing because I'm not "that" kind of person.
I think that one of the major issues is that people will use certain labels to help justifying behaving in a certain way, or avoid specific tasks and situations. E.g. a ton of people hate talking on the phone, for reasons that are beyond me, and they will justify this is being introvert or having some sort of social anxiety, while at the same time being outgoing and extroverted in pretty much every other situation.
As I grow old I've stopped trying to put labels on my behavior. They rarely fit and society expects that I act or believe in certain ways depending on how those labels are generally perceived.
The act of putting a name on some traits that you have can seem liberating: I finally know what I am, and why I’m different from others, and that’s fine.
On the flipside, once you commit to a label, you lock yourself inside it, and instead of describing, it begins shaping what you are.
It doesn’t help that other people often try very hard to pin us down and assign labels to us forcefully, without considering if we’re OK with that.
The trick is to describe your behavior and separate that from yourself. Instead of being an introvert you can just say that my behavior was introverted, and that was a function of my internal psychological state.
Also, be open to experimenting with what affects that state, and reflect on it. That will remind you that you’re not a constant, you’re a function :)