The need to cast aside opponents with simple labels

[iNow]

Why do humans engage in such baseless argumentative tactics as simple as applying ideological labels?

 

 

We've all seen it. In politics, in science, and other areas of life.

 

 

"The NYTimes is a liberal rag."

"Rush Limbaugh is a rightie nutbag."

"Anthropogenic global warming supporters are a bunch of hippie tree huggers."

 

 

There are countless others, but that's not what this thread is about.

 

 

Why do we argue with labels so often instead of content? Further, why are so many people convinced by the label instead of the content?

 

I hope you will share your opinions freely and add to this discussion.

[Paralith]

However, some people also put labels on themselves - sometimes with pride. I'm a fire-breathing liberal! I'm a family man! Etc. And people who do this do it because they believe that the label conveys (at least in part) an accurate portrait of who they are. Or, and perhaps more importantly, who they want people to think they are. In this sense, I think the question of "why do we use labels?" is fairly easy to answer - in short and sweet terms, it conveys a description of a certain person or group that we want others to believe is true.

 

I think the real kicker is "why are we easily convinced by labels?" Intellectually, most people understand that a single person or group cannot be described in whole by a word or two, so I'm not entirely sure about this one myself. People who know more about pscyhology might have some better answers.

 

Personally, I think it might have something to do with information efficiency. Our brains are pattern seekers, looking for patterns that we can use to define and understand the complexities of the world around us, allowing us to function better within it. The idea of a two-word description that tells us all we need to know is probably innately appealing to us. After all, how many quizzes and questionaires contain questions like, "If you could use ONE WORD to describe such-and-such, what would it be??" But that's just my opinion.

[Mag]

Well, maybe party because of the Sociological Theory of Labeling Theory?

As it essentially works... at least I think it does.

 

Although in the case of labeling theory its saying [basically] that if someone does a crime, and you label them a criminal, they will always be seen as one - and they'll usually always be seen as a bad guy.

Similar to a sex offender.

You could make sexual joke in a work place, and if someone doesnt like it, they can take you to court. And lets say they win, you'll be labeled as a sex offender, even though what you did (in your eyes, and perhaps the eyes of many others) was fairly harmless. but because you have that label, people see you very differently.

 

So really, labels hold a lot of power. There's a big difference between saying (for example, Im going to use you iNow - I hope you dont mind ) "iNow is an environmentalist" and "iNow is a hippie tree-hugging liberal" - one is respectable, while the other is demeaning. Giving you a label can change how people perceive you, even though you've done nothing different.

 

The answer as to why we do it? I think its because it really does work - as long as enough people latch on to it and believe it.

 

If you hear someone is something (a right-wing nutcase for example), and you have no proof of it, its like a first impression, you're almost bound to believe it until proven otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

We use labels for the same reason we use categories (which are the same thing), because of our tendency to find patterns, to generalize. The category allows us to apply a general set of rules to any member of the category. This helps us think, and I'm guessing will be a part of any intelligence.

 

When labels are used in an argument, they are an ad hominem argument, but if the label is accurate, that is a good argument (even while being a logical fallacy). However, people generally don't completely conform to such labels, and then it is a poor argument as well as a logical fallacy.

[dichotomy]

Because labels are, 1. simple and 2. effective.

 

Your brain doesn’t have to try too hard comprehending the label, whereas the content is much more complex, it’s bigger, changes, is more difficult to confirm. Politics and advertising love labels, it sells things, that don’t necessarily work, easily to the masses. People, in general, are not good at processing content because they are too occupied with earning a living, looking after a family.

[iNow]

So, I should have titled this thread, "The voluptuous god orgasm of puppy lovers" and I'd have more replies and agreement?

 

 

Kidding aside, the responses above are spot on, and appreciated.

[dichotomy]

So, I should have titled this thread, "The voluptuous god orgasm of puppy lovers" and I'd have more replies and agreement?

 

 

Kidding aside, the responses above are spot on, and appreciated.

 

You’re a marketing natural!

 

God + Hooters + food + cheap + attracts the opposite sex + easy money + guaranteed to work.

 

Now, that should get some more hits. 53 view so far. let’s check in two weeks. This is a scientific test!

[Phi for All]

Why do we argue with labels so often instead of content? Further, why are so many people convinced by the label instead of the content?

This part sounds more like the Fundamental Attribution Error. We label because we love to categorize, but we attribute behavior to the label because we don't tend to look at others in context. It's much easier to ascribe the term "liberal" to someone who doesn't like corporate conglomerates, rather than to dig deeper to find out that their concerns are actually for business and fair markets in general and are actually quite conservative.

 

Much easier, but completely wrong.

[YT2095]

 

Why do we argue with labels so often instead of content? Further, why are so many people convinced by the label instead of the content?

 

Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP for short).

although there are training seminars to learn to use this tool, it`s mostly based on things we already know but didn`t realise we know.

 

it only has to create that image or feeling for just a second or so and it sticks, thus undermining the "Opponent" and/or argument.

[iNow]

I think part of this labelling happens more when the person is losing an argument. What do you think? Is that a fair assessment?

[Sayonara]

I was going to say "because it's easy and it works", then I saw that dichotomy had beaten me to the punch so I didn't. Except that I did.

[dichotomy]

I was going to say "because it's easy and it works", then I saw that dichotomy had beaten me to the punch so I didn't. Except that I did.

 

Great minds, label things alike!

[Mag]

I was going to say "because it's easy and it works", then I saw that dichotomy had beaten me to the punch so I didn't. Except that I did.

 

I said it before Dichotomy did... but thats ok.

(maybe not as succinctly though )

 

 

I think part of this labelling happens more when the person is losing an argument. What do you think? Is that a fair assessment?

 

I dont know about more often, but Im sure people who are winning one would use them as well (maybe that's why they're winning in the first place?)

[iNow]

Yeah... I've been thinking about that possibility more since I posted it, and I don't think it's valid. Labels are a bigger part of our communication repetoire, something that brings a great deal of meaning with very little energy or resources. The trade-off for the quickness and breadth of information is a lack of refined detail.

 

The posts above make good sense. I think I was trying to drive at something more related to group think, social like-mindedness, and content-free assertions.

 

Thanks to all who have posted. You've helped me wipe my ideas from some of their needless and unfounded characteristics.