Human beings are complex and unique. Consequently, we all label each other and ourselves. By focusing on one attribute of a person, is there an extrapolation of that attribute that defines the person as a whole? Can the use of labels create biases? For example, " a schizophrenic pushed a woman onto the subway tracks." Does the event require that the diagnosis of schizophrenia be included ? If the person also had diagnoses of depression, vertigo, hypertension and heart disease, should they also be included as attributes of the person? Or is the correlation of schizophrenia and violence so strong that it warrants exclusive inclusion?

Try not to focus entirely on the example, but on my thesis that by extrapolating one attribute of a person you create an inaccurate and stereotypical representation of a person or group. What do you think?

[geis]

I do believe that labels can play on misleading stereotypes. For instance, I identify as asexual--I don't experience sexual attraction to anyone. For most people, that comes with the assumption that I'm cold, asocial, and don't have meaningful relationships. In reality, I've been in two long-term romantic relationships (several years each), and I'm fully capable of love. It's just that for me love comes without sexual attraction.

I think a lot of the problems with relying on labels result from people not fully understanding the implications of the label. Of course, we can't expect everyone to be knowledgeable about every label out there. I think the best we can do is to be aware of the assumptions we make about others and be willing to revise our view of them.

[Webgoji]

Well, "woman" is a label as well. In your example, the sentence indicates causation. That the person suffering from schizophrenia pushed the woman due to complications of their mental illness.

When we experience something we immediately name it. It might be "that thing" or whatever, but we immediately label everything around us. Of course any label is only one aspect of anything and any extrapolation of a label creates an inaccurate image of said object.

For example, the woman in your example. By using the label "woman", we are immediately (or in my case) lead to believe this is a mature female, as "girl" is often reserved for less mature females. However we know that age and mental maturity are not necessarily linked so we've already made an inappropriate assumption just by referring to this person as a "woman"; that she is a mentally and physically mature person when that may not be the case.

[MattBemis]

Label makers are fun.

In all seriousness, humans will always label and stereotype, that's where the stigma against mental illness comes from in the first place. We can and shold try to fight it, but human beings will always find something else to label.

Originally Posted by Webgoji

Well, "woman" is a label as well. In your example, the sentence indicates causation. That the person suffering from schizophrenia pushed the woman due to complications of their mental illness.

When we experience something we immediately name it. It might be "that thing" or whatever, but we immediately label everything around us. Of course any label is only one aspect of anything and any extrapolation of a label creates an inaccurate image of said object.

For example, the woman in your example. By using the label "woman", we are immediately (or in my case) lead to believe this is a mature female, as "girl" is often reserved for less mature females. However we know that age and mental maturity are not necessarily linked so we've already made an inappropriate assumption just by referring to this person as a "woman"; that she is a mentally and physically mature person when that may not be the case.

First, thank you for your reply to my post.

As for the example, I did not create it; I heard a television reporter say those exact words ( that's why I used quotation marks ). And, yes, "woman" is a label--as is "schizophrenic". I agree with you that the example indicates causation.

Again, thank you for your reply.

I want to expound on the implication of causation in the example. Should we automatically conclude that the person's diagnosis of schizophrenia was the cause of the behavior? The person also had diagnoses of depression, vertigo, hypertension and heart disease. Is it possible that one--or a combination of--these diagnoses was the cause of the person's behavior? Is it possible that the person was extremely depressed? Is it possible that the person lost balance and simply fell against the woman? Is it possible that the person had a stroke or heart attack and fell against the woman? Maybe the woman was not pushed.

My point is that we should not automatically conclude that the person's diagnosis of schizophrenia was the cause of the behavior.

[Fuzzybear]

[Nammu]

Having a label often leads others to assume behavior before even meeting the human or thing behind the label. For instance I'm deaf, people often assume before meeting me that I must be low functioning, not able to read or drive( the number of ignorant doctors I've met is astounding) Labels are convenient shortcuts but predisposition people to expectations based on a bias which can be completely wrong. Those preconceptions are often formed in the absence of any previous associations, in the example the schizophrenic women, most people have never knowingly met a schizophrenic ( they may have unknowingly met schizophrenic people) but they still assign negative values to that label from hearing that anything out side of normal( there's that useless word again) is to be avoided or feared.