Harmful Labelling. Why Shouldn’t We Diagnose Others?

The risks of “pop-psychology” and diagnosing in social media

“Pop psychology,” increasingly common on social media, oversimplifies complex psychological concepts, often reducing them to easy-to-assimilate clichés. This leads, among other things, to widespread misinterpretations of human behavior. Meanwhile, online diagnosis does not take into account how complex a person is, while reducing complex processes to psychological terms, but without putting them in a broader perspective.

The dangers of pseudoscientific beliefs and oversimplified interpretations of psychological phenomena speak, among others, in studies conducted by psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld. For example, a term such as “narcissist” is used very loosely, without taking into account the detailed context, although the phenomenon requires a professional diagnosis. Such a trend fosters misconceptions about the area of mental health and encourages people to view themselves or others in ways that are not supported by scientific facts.

It's worth noting that social media users are overwhelmingly not mental health professionals. Coupled with this, a reckless trust in the content we encounter online, as well as a belief in our own interpretations, often not supported by sufficient evidence, can lead to harmful labeling. Social media does not provide us with the depth and dialogue necessary for this type of judgment, which very often leads to hasty “patching”.

Why can labeling others be harmful?

Using labels to determine how other people behave, and how they are, has a number of negative effects:

1. Oversimplifying and reinforcing prejudices

When we label someone as, for example, a “narcissist” or a “toxic person,” we use cognitive abbreviations that simplify the complexity of human behavior. We are dealing with a fundamental attribution error, originally described by Lee Ross. It is a situation in which we attribute actions to the personality traits and character of the person, rather than taking into account situational factors or context. For example, someone who is assertive at a given moment may receive the “narcissist” patch, even though their behavior may be determined, for example, by stress or miscommunication, or be a single, isolated reaction to a given situation. These types of 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 evaluation each time for confirmation, with even specialists having to approach diagnoses carefully, 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 exhibit egocentric behaviors from time to time, but this does not necessarily mean that they suffer from a personality disorder. The misuse of such terms also undermines the experiences of people who genuinely struggle 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 the way we interact with them, but also their behaviors. This phenomenon describes the Pygmalion effect, developed by Rosenthal and Jacobson, indicating that the expectations of some people can influence the behavior of others. If we refer to someone as a “toxic person,” we may subconsciously treat them in ways that elicit negative or defensive responses, reinforcing our initial assumptions. If we assume that someone is engaging in manipulation, we can treat them with suspicion, which in response can trigger defensive or hostile behavior. Thus, labeling can create a vicious circle in which the behavior we expect becomes the behavior we actually receive.

4. Limiting empathy and understanding

Labels are reductive in nature — they focus on a single, chosen aspect and ignore the broader context of a person's life and experiences. Meanwhile, 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 seems to strive to control their immediate environment may actually act this way out of fear or the need to stay safe in a given situation. By labeling such a person as “toxic,” we turn off empathy, which, as a result, prevents us from understanding their deeper needs or the root cause of their behavior.

5. Negative dynamics in relationships

When we give someone a negative label, there is generally an escalation of the conflict, rather than its resolution. According to research by Gottman and Silver, criticism and contempt are the two most damaging dynamics in relationships. Labels are judgmental in nature and create a sense of moral superiority in the person who uses them. This can lead to “us versus them” behavior, in which 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 introduces emotional distancing while destroying trust and feelings of intimacy.

Three strategies to communicate without labeling

Compared to the practice of labeling, it is much more constructive to focus on specific behaviors and their effects. This approach encourages understanding and behavior change without resorting to oversimplification or judgment. Support in the application of this method can be provided by the following techniques:

1. Focusing on behavior, not character

Instead of ascribing a fixed trait to someone, let's describe a specific behavior and how it affects us. This takes the conversation from the level of blame to the level of understanding.

Example: Instead of: “You are so controlling!” , try saying, “When you decide things without asking me for my opinion, I feel excluded. Can we discuss decisions together in the future?”

This technique is rooted in Non-Violent Agreement, which emphasizes observation rather than evaluations, which limits defensive responses and promotes mutual understanding.

2. Using the term “I” to express feelings

Using the term “I” reduces the risk that the other person might feel attacked.

Example: Instead of: “You always bring everything to yourself!” , say, “I feel ignored when our conversations focus only on your experiences. I am happy to share what is in my heart.”

This technique encourages you to take personal responsibility for your emotions and encourages collaboration, not blame.

3. Setting boundaries with respect for the other person

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

Example: Instead of: “You are toxic and I can't handle it anymore!” , say, “I value our relationship, but I need some space when conversations get heated. I will be happy to return to this topic when we both calm down.”

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

The Brain and Cognitive Distortions and Simplifications

It may happen that labeling is not due to ill will, because our brain tries to simplify judgments and thinking about different phenomena in order to save energy. Because of this, cognitive distortions and simplifications arise, from which it is only a step to labeling. This phenomenon can bring a lot of harm to people around us, as well as to ourselves. It is therefore worthwhile to carefully look at your own thoughts. It is also important to remember that professional diagnosis of mental 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 will 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., The seven principles for making marriage work: A practical guide from the country's foremost relationship expert, Three Rivers Press, 1999.}
6. ^{Rosenberg, M.B., Nonviolent communication: a language of life, 2nd ed., Encinitas, CA, PuddleDancer Press, 2003.}
7. ^{Gordon T., Parent Effectiveness Training: The Proven Program for Raising Responsible Children, Three Rivers Press, 2003.}
8. ^{Cloud H. & Townsend J.S., Boundaries: when to say yes, how to say no to take control of your life, Updated and expanded [edition], Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 2017.}