on labeling yourself
This is something I have been thinking about because of an essay I recently wrote on Frank Luntz, the self-proclaimed "Johnny appleseed of language". The question I had is this, is it okay to give yourself labels like that?
Thinking on it, we give ourselves labels all the time. Just in my last post, I referred to myself as a pessimist and a realist. Is that really for me to say? Sure, it may be my philosophies we are talking about, but does that necessarily give me the right to label myself? People say "im a nice person" or "im smart" and plenty of other things. Is it really for the person themselves to say whether or not they are indeed smart or nice? Is that not just self-aggrandisement? Sure, there is plenty of room for delusions as well. Plenty of objectively stupid people believe themselves to be smart. That is a well documented psychological phenomena, the dunning kruger effect. I think a similar thing exists for topics outside of intelligence. Like the cooler you think you are, the less likely you are to actually be cool. Another example being niceness. The nicer you claim to be, the less likely you are to actually be nice. If that is true, then are all labels given by oneself truly pointless? If it is true that the more you consider yourself to be something, the less likely you are to actually be that something; then, is confidence necessarily a lie? Or is it just overconfidence? If so, when does confidence become overconfidence? Surely it is impossible for the person themselves to decide. A truly overconfident person will never consider themselves to be overconfident. So we just keep coming back to other people. Other people label you. You cannot label yourself. This is the conclusion that I draw. Labelling yourself is just self-aggrandisement at it's finest. The truth is not relevant as long as your identity is reliant on it.
With that I will leave you guys with some advice. Be wary of people that label themselves. People that call themselves smart or nice or cool or whatever. Be wary of them.
Thinking on it, we give ourselves labels all the time. Just in my last post, I referred to myself as a pessimist and a realist. Is that really for me to say? Sure, it may be my philosophies we are talking about, but does that necessarily give me the right to label myself? People say "im a nice person" or "im smart" and plenty of other things. Is it really for the person themselves to say whether or not they are indeed smart or nice? Is that not just self-aggrandisement? Sure, there is plenty of room for delusions as well. Plenty of objectively stupid people believe themselves to be smart. That is a well documented psychological phenomena, the dunning kruger effect. I think a similar thing exists for topics outside of intelligence. Like the cooler you think you are, the less likely you are to actually be cool. Another example being niceness. The nicer you claim to be, the less likely you are to actually be nice. If that is true, then are all labels given by oneself truly pointless? If it is true that the more you consider yourself to be something, the less likely you are to actually be that something; then, is confidence necessarily a lie? Or is it just overconfidence? If so, when does confidence become overconfidence? Surely it is impossible for the person themselves to decide. A truly overconfident person will never consider themselves to be overconfident. So we just keep coming back to other people. Other people label you. You cannot label yourself. This is the conclusion that I draw. Labelling yourself is just self-aggrandisement at it's finest. The truth is not relevant as long as your identity is reliant on it.
With that I will leave you guys with some advice. Be wary of people that label themselves. People that call themselves smart or nice or cool or whatever. Be wary of them.
Comments
Post a Comment