Jargogled Impressions.

How often do labels drive our motivations? We prefer these labels, or identity-forming terms to simplify the world around us and classify the people we meet, hear, or see into recognizable buckets. But in a classic case of confusion between the territory and the map, we end up misusing these labels as representing the central essence of people. But is that valid? And more importantly, is it, morally right?

Maps, languages, epithets, religion, race, sexuality are all abstractions with which we describe the walking two-limbed animals we see around us. But often, we end up equating the abstraction with the abstracted and that becomes dangerous on many levels.

The frequency and intensity with which we apply these labels to the people around us should give us a pause sometimes. The more you rely on these labels to make sense of the world around you, the more you come closer to deviating from the reality and, ala quantum physics, the laws of human nature built around these labels then tend to collapse.

“Only a Sith deals with absolutes” – so says Obi Wan Kobi to Anakin in the third installation “Revenge of the Sith”. A pithy, meme-worthy memorialization of the dangers of dealing in absolute identities. Its always been a spectrum across which people tend to identify themselves, depending on where they are in their lives and what the world is telling them to do to survive. When we apply these labels then, we force ourselves off the veering highway of human emotions and realities that are as much of an alphabet soup as they are these crafted terminologies we use to make sense of them.

How do we go about picking these labels for ourselves? Across professional, personal, and community life there are literally thousands of ways in which we can identify ourselves and which one takes precedence in an instance is dependent on several external and internal factors at play when we arrive at a decision point. These labels generally help us save time and energy by making us take automated decisions on the back of their theoretical constructs. In innocuous, personal, and mechanical realms these labels are the mental models through which we make our lives easier. But, when these labels become ambitious, and start encroaching on areas that intersect with the lives of people other than us, that’s when things get interesting and dangerous.

Mistaking these abstractions for objective realities are what extremists typically indulge in. Moderates, on the other hand, are driven by motivations, context, conscious and rational thinking, and intensity of their associations.

Abstractions, especially those that lead to identities, suffer from several limitations that are important to keep in mind before letting them have the free reign over our decision-making powers. These abstractions could be a) wrong, b) limited in scope, or c) prone to varying interpretations. How we deal with these limitations are what makes one moderate versus extremist.

Wrong abstractions are just that. They existence is driven by an unnatural force keen on driving a wedge between our actual and perceived understanding of the world. The force might well be groups of people, the state, society, or organizations keen on creating a make-believe world where these abstractions hold true and stand the rigorous test of applicability and usefulness.

Abstractions are most often reductions of the actual terrain and they take liberties in their assumptions to enable a ready usability of the model and doing so makes these abstractions only a small replica of the actual world. Not understanding the limitations around the boundaries of the map, or the subset of situations / people they describe can be disastrous.

For abstractions that rely on interpretations and analyses to make sense (think religion, evolution, most of art and fashion), the inherent danger around how these models get used by different people is vast. We only need look at history to understand how inordinately powerful (and evil) these abstractions can become if we let them dictate our behaviors in complex adaptive systems.

Complex systems are, by definition, those systems whose behavior is difficult to model due to the interlocking dependencies (horizontal, temporal, diagonal) and relationships (interactions, ecosystems). Modern scientific endeavors have attempted to explain complex systems by diving deeper into the atomic units / smallest indivisible units through which they could explain the broader phenomena. What that requires though is a strong understanding of these interlocking dependencies as also a grip on the characteristics of these indivisible particles that stand the test of the rigor of scientific enquiry.

In a sense, if our identities, or the labels with which we associate ourselves with, becomes more and more granular, maybe, just maybe, we can get closer to the realities that govern our lives. Being specific to the point of nth decimal can eliminate the sense of mob mentality that typically engulfs any attempt at bringing classification into the human fold and can also add a layer of nuance to any argument about stereotypes.

Stereotypes are useful tools with which we frame what we see around us, and in pretty much most of the cases they hold true. Especially when it comes to gender, social equality, class, and even sunsigns (nope). They offer a lighter way of organizing the world around us and if leveraged properly, can add to your basic conception of objective reality. Separating the forest from the trees. Zooming out versus zooming in.

How we use stereotypes is therefore key towards slotting them as useful mental models versus weapons of mass delusion and egoistical extremity. As a driver of behaviors and our interactions with the external world, they can be quite handy to really make sense of the increasing number of strangers we meet in our lives. For those purely transactional interactions, these models become a viable way to quickly grasp the motivations and the behavioral eccentricities and adapt ourselves to ensure a speedy, efficient, and mutually beneficial transaction.

As tools for self-identification and activism though, they take on a completely different shape altogether. These epithets, labels, groupings, clubs, communities, tribes etc. then become as tribal and narrow-minded as demonstrated by the neo-Xs of the world today.

As with modern technological tools, misuse and exploitation of these models have profound implications for a society, a country, a religion, a race, a clan, or a tribe. Jingoism reigns supreme when the side-effects become the default normal.