Harmful Labelling. Why Shouldn’t We Diagnose Others?

The risks of "pop psychology" and social media diagnosis

"Pop psychology," increasingly common on social media, oversimplifies complex psychological concepts, often reducing them to easily digestible clichés. This leads, among other things, to widespread misinterpretations of human behavior. Meanwhile, diagnosing online fails to account for the complexity of a person, while reducing complicated processes to psychological terms without placing them in a broader perspective.

Research by psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld, among others, highlights the dangers associated with pseudoscientific beliefs and oversimplified interpretations of psychological phenomena. For example, a term like "narcissist" is used very loosely, without considering the detailed context, even though the phenomenon requires a professional diagnosis. Such a trend fosters misunderstandings regarding mental health and encourages people to perceive themselves or others in ways not supported by scientific facts.

It is worth noting that the vast majority of social media users are not mental health professionals. Coupled with this is an uncritical trust in the content we encounter online, as well as faith in our own interpretations, which are often not supported by sufficient evidence, potentially leading to harmful labeling. Social media does not provide the depth or sufficient dialogue necessary for such judgments, which very often leads to hasty "pigeonholing."

Why can labeling other people be harmful?

Using labels to define how other people behave and who they are has many negative consequences:

1. Oversimplification and reinforcing prejudices

When we label someone, for example as a "narcissist" or a "toxic person," we use cognitive shortcuts that simplify the complexity of human behavior. We are dealing with the fundamental attribution error, originally described by Lee Ross. This is a situation where we attribute actions to a person's personality traits and character instead of considering situational factors or context. For example, someone who is assertive in a given moment might be labeled a "narcissist," even though their behavior might be determined by stress, miscommunication, or be a single, isolated reaction to a situation. Such labels ignore the dynamic nature of human behavior and personality, which can lead to prejudice.

2. Misuse of clinical terms

Diagnostic labels, such as "narcissistic personality disorder" or "borderline personality disorder," are complex constructs developed based on scientific and clinical research. They also require a professional assessment each time to confirm, and even specialists must approach diagnoses with caution, taking into account the context, duration, and intensity of symptoms. When these terms are used loosely, they lose their meaning and can stigmatize behaviors that do not meet clinical criteria. For example, someone may occasionally exhibit egocentric behavior, but this does not necessarily mean they suffer from a personality disorder. The misuse of such terms also undermines the experiences of people who are actually struggling with these disorders, trivializing their experiences and contributing to social stigma.

3. Labels as "self-fulfilling prophecies"

Research suggests that labeling other people can shape not only how we interact with them but also their behavior. This phenomenon is described by the Pygmalion effect, developed by Rosenthal and Jacobson, which indicates that one person's expectations can influence another's behavior. If we label someone a "toxic person," we may subconsciously treat them in a way that triggers negative or defensive reactions, reinforcing our initial assumptions. If we assume someone is manipulative, we may treat them with suspicion, which in turn may provoke defensive or hostile behavior. In this way, labeling can create a vicious cycle where the behavior we expect becomes the behavior we actually receive.

4. Limiting empathy and understanding

Labels are reductive—they focus on a single, selected aspect while ignoring the broader context of a person's life and experiences. Research on empathy and perspective-taking leads to a clear conclusion: understanding the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of others requires us to move beyond superficial judgments. For example, someone who appears to be trying to control their immediate environment may actually be acting that way out of fear or a need for security in a given situation. By labeling such a person as "toxic," we shut down empathy, which in turn makes it impossible for us to understand their deeper needs or the root cause of their behavior.

5. Negative relationship dynamics

When we apply a negative label to someone, it generally escalates conflict rather than resolving it. According to research by Gottman and Silver, criticism and contempt are the two most harmful dynamics in relationships. Labels are inherently judgmental and create a sense of moral superiority in the person using them. This can lead to "us vs. them" behavior, where one person feels unfairly criticized and the other feels justified in their judgment. Instead of fostering open communication or mutual problem-solving, labeling leads to blame and creates emotional distance, while simultaneously destroying trust and intimacy.

Three strategies for communication without labeling

Compared to the practice of labeling, it is far more constructive to focus on specific behaviors and their effects. This approach encourages understanding and behavioral change without resorting to oversimplification or judgment. The following techniques can support the use of this method:

1. Focusing on behavior, not character

Instead of attributing a fixed trait to someone, describe a specific behavior and its impact on you. This shifts the conversation from blame to understanding.

Example: Instead of "You're so controlling!", try saying: "When you make decisions without asking for my opinion, I feel excluded. Can we discuss decisions together in the future?".

This technique is rooted in Nonviolent Communication, which emphasizes observation over evaluation, reducing defensive reactions and fostering mutual understanding.

2. Using "I" statements to express feelings

Using "I" statements reduces the risk of the other person feeling attacked.

Example: Instead of saying, "You always make everything about yourself!", try: "I feel ignored when our conversations focus only on your experiences. I would love to share what is on my mind as well."

This technique encourages taking personal responsibility for your emotions and fosters cooperation rather than blame.

3. Setting boundaries while respecting the other person

If someone's behavior affects you negatively, it is important to set boundaries without resorting to negative labels. Boundaries should focus on your own reaction rather than attempting to control the other person.

Example: Instead of saying, "You are toxic and I can't deal with this anymore!", try: "I value our relationship, but I need some space when our conversations get heated. I would be happy to revisit this topic once we have both calmed down."

This technique aims to protect your well-being while maintaining respect for the other person.

The brain, cognitive distortions, and oversimplification

Labeling may not always stem from ill intent, as our brains naturally try to simplify judgments and thoughts about various phenomena to conserve energy. This leads to cognitive distortions and oversimplifications, which are just a step away from labeling. This phenomenon can cause significant harm to those around us, as well as to ourselves. It is therefore worth observing our own thoughts with mindfulness. It is also important to remember that a professional diagnosis of mental health disorders is a task for specialists—psychologists and psychiatrists.

Bibliography:

1. ^{Lilienfeld S. O., Lynn S. J., Ruscio J. & Beyerstein B. L., 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.}
2. ^{Dimaggio G., Lysaker P. H., Carcione A., Nicolo G. & Semerari A., Know yourself and you shall know the other... to a certain extent: multiple paths of influence of self-reflection on mindreading, Consciousness and cognition, 17(3), 778–789, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.02.005}
3. ^{Rosenthal R. & Jacobson L., Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16–20, 1968, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02322211}
4. ^{Batson C.D., Lishner D. & Stocks E., The empathy-altruism hypothesis, The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior, 259-281, 2015.}
5. ^{Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work: A practical guide from the country's foremost relationship expert. Three Rivers Press.}
6. ^{Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (2nd ed.). PuddleDancer Press.}
7. ^{Gordon, T. (2003). Parent Effectiveness Training: The proven program for raising responsible children. Three Rivers Press.}
8. ^{Cloud, H., & Townsend, J. S. (2017). Boundaries: When to say yes, how to say no to take control of your life (Updated and expanded ed.). Zondervan.}