A question I keep asking is: How can people be persuaded not to use labels they identify with as a primary means for psychological stabilization and to instead identify with the process of self-correction in relation to reality and long-term good?
This is a bit of a dense sentence so allow me to break it down. Let me discuss the different assumptions and elaborate on terms I use.
Assumption 1: People use labels as a primary means for psychological stabilization.
When I talk about labels, I mean the things that people identify as. “I am a good businessman.” or “I am intelligent.” or “I am someone who should be respected by others.” Or “I am part of X group and X group has the only valid claims to truth.” The labels we have for ourselves points to the story we have for ourselves and our understanding of who we are and expectations for reality.
These are labels that when we see reinforced make us feel better about ourselves. Or if not, then the opposite feeling is produced.
Assumption 2: People ought to be persuaded to change a primary means of psychological stabilization.
My defense for this assumption is that labels can make a person be fragile and unable or slow to adapt. It also makes it harder for a person to understand other perspectives. What if people are forcing themselves to play a role that is actually harming them more than benefitting? Or what if things do not work out the way you expect and there is a significant mismatch between reality and expectations? How can you truly understand perspectives radically different from your own when you are too emotionally attached to your labels and expectations?
I am not saying that labels should be abandoned. They do serve practical functions like making it efficient to make decisions by simplifying and narrowing your role and also making it easier to signal to others who you are and what your capabilities are. My main claim is that they should be subordinate to grounding identity in the described process.
A possible objection is that not everyone is capable of this. And to you I would say, you are very likely correct. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect this out of everyone because there are all kinds of constraints. But I think it should be held as an ideal so that the people who are capable of it, do end up integrating it.
Assumption 3: People ought to ground identity with the process of self-correction in relation to reality and long-term good rather than static labels.
When I talk about reality, I refer to feedback given by the environment. Is what you assumed what would come of your actions correct? If not, what have you learned and will try to implement from there?
When I talk about long-term good, I refer to long-term flourishing, doing things that can be repeated over time without collapse, a direction characterized by the alleviation of suffering for all.
Reality is complex. This is a perspective that invites the posture of humility. A good default assumption is “I’m probably missing something or am wrong, how can I be less wrong?” And to keep asking that to accelerate continual improvement. No delusions, no false pretenses about how one should be right or how things should be.
Another thing I would argue is that it makes a person more receptive and able to discern. Even if information is presented in a way that they do not like, they are capable of grasping it without being overly focused on the feeling of being attacked or rejecting it because of disgust. One can be made more capable to see if there is anything useful and discard what is not, thus increasing the overall capacity for clarity and seeing other perspectives. Feeling insulted can easily make one react a certain way but if you are not grounded in the need for your labels to be reinforced, then it’ll be easier to be calm and think straight.