Labels don't explain motives.

We’ve all been there: you see someone change their stance on an issue, and the first thought that comes to mind is, “What a hypocrite!” While a fair label, it doesn’t explain why they made a hypocritical decision, and no one does so to be a hypocrite. The core problem with labels is they don’t explain motives & often, too many people stop there. The other issue is they are usually very limited in their scope, describing only one aspect of an individual.

This leads to what people refer to as a cognitive empathy deficit, where we don’t understand how an individual or collective makes decisions. This in turn makes it harder for us to anticipate their actions and respond more effectively. It also makes it harder to see people for who they are and not get blindsided by their choices. The post covers three examples of where labels can limit us from learning more & how to get past that, whether it’s because of mislabeling, not digging past the label, or only applying one label at a time.

Labeling State & Federal Judge Nominations as Non-Partisan (Mislabeling)

Judges have lengthy terms, including lifetime appointments to the US Supreme Court, to ensure they can interpret the law without constantly seeking votes. This is meant to promote non-partisan rulings within a narrow band of ideological differences. Given that most people view the courts through this lens, it’s no surprise that it took so long for the information to come out that Clarence Thomas had been receiving millions in gifts from notable conservative billion Harlan Crow for years. When you are not looking for something or don’t believe it can exist, it’s likely not going to arise, as it did not for years till Pro-Publica decided to take a closer look.

The solution in these scenarios is to tie results back to the label. Rather than simply label a person as non-partisan based on perception, the title should be earned based on a review of decisions, disclosure of received financial support, networking etc. If reality confers that a non-partisan label is appropriate, it should be conferred. However, if not, reality should take precedence over wishful thinking.

Labeling the US’s historical stance on the Armenian Genocide Hypocritical (Stopping at the Label ):

For those who don’t know, from 1915 to 1917, the Ottomans(now modern-day Turkey) murdered 1.5 million Armenians. Until 2021, the U.S. refused to publicly acknowledge the Armenian genocide to appease the Turks in exchange for Turkey hosting the Incirlik Air Base, joining NATO, and helping the US manage conflicts with Syria & Russia. Labeling this as hypocritical is correct, but it doesn’t explain why the US’s thought process behind making the decision in the first place. A closer look would reveal insights into how the US evaluates decisions relating to war & foreign affairs:

• As a superpower, the US is able to provide stability around the world, and anything that threatens that puts the whole world at risk, so decisions need to be determined with that in mind.
• Events like the Armenian Genocide cannot be undone, but by gaining a strategic military advantage, the US can better position itself to prevent future genocides.
• Confrontation can lead to gridlock and impasse, creating openings for countries like China, Russia, and Iran to exploit. Better to partner with and placate authoritarians like Erdogan(Turkish PM) than to issue a challenge that cannot be won.

This decision-making framework wasn’t just responsible for catalyzing a multi-decade-long campaign in both Afghanistan & Iraq. It currently drives our continued engagements in Ukraine & Gaza despite the considerable amount mount of pushback both at home & abroad. If more time is spent understanding the why vs. the what, perhaps we can be more effective as a voting public at anticipating & heading off future dilemmas.

Celebrities are usually beloved or hated, never in between (multiple labels needed vs one)

People are multifaceted beings, embodying a complex mix of traits and actions that can’t be neatly categorized into a single label. However, one prominent characteristic often dominates our perception, overshadowing the rest of a person’s identity.

For example, Elon Musk used to be widely recognized as a genius who revolutionized the electric vehicle industry. Still, his use of social media as a platform for his insecurities and controversial opinions often eclipsed this perception. Similarly, Dr. Dre is currently celebrated as one of the most influential hip-hop artists of all time, yet this acclaim overshadows his well-known history of violence against women. Here, you have two well-known individuals whose current stature is dominated by a single label, though both deserve to be defined by the positive and negative aspects of their legacy, mainly because there is no evidence either to find the negative aspects of their legacy to be troubling.

Kyrie Irving’s recent success with the Mavs has once again brought into the spotlight his extraordinary skills as a guard, possibly one of the most talented ever to play the game. This has pushed His recent history of anti-Semitic remarks and embrace of conspiracy theories to the background. There is actually no reason why a great athlete can’t be a conspiracy theorist besides the fact that we aren’t capable of accepting that fact much to our own detriment.