Harmful Labelling. Why Shouldn’t We Diagnose Others?

Risks of “pop-psychology” and diagnosing through social media

“Pop-psychology”, which is increasingly prevalent on social media, oversimplifies complex psychological concepts, often reducing them to easy-to-absorb clichés. Among other things, this leads to widespread misinterpretations of human behaviour. Meanwhile, online diagnosis does not take into account how complicated humans are, while reducing complex processes to psychological terms, but without putting them in a broader perspective.

The dangers of pseudo-scientific beliefs and oversimplified interpretations of psychological phenomena are discussed, among others, in a study conducted by psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld. For example, a term such as “narcissist” is used very freely, without considering the detailed context, although this phenomenon requires professional diagnosis. Such a trend fosters misunderstandings about the area of mental health and encourages people to view themselves or others in ways that are not supported by scientific facts.

It is worth noting that social media users are overwhelmingly not mental health professionals. Paired with this is blind trust in the content we encounter online, as well as a belief in our own interpretations, often unsupported by sufficient evidence, which can lead to hurtful labelling. This is because social media does not provide us with the necessary depth and sufficient dialogue for such judgments, which very often leads to hasty labelling.

Why can labelling others be harmful?

Using labels to define how other people behave, and what they are like, has many negative effects:

1. Over-simplifying and reinforcing prejudices

When we label someone, calling them a “narcissist” or a “toxic person”, for example, we use cognitive shortcuts that simplify the complexity of human behaviour. We are dealing with a fundamental attribution error, originally described by Lee Ross. This is when we attribute actions to a person’s personality traits and character, instead of considering situational factors or context. For example, someone who is assertive at the given moment may be labelled “narcissist”, even though their behaviour may, for example, be driven by stress or miscommunication, or be a single, isolated reaction to a given situation. Such labels ignore the dynamic nature of human behaviour 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 professional evaluation each time for confirmation, with even specialists needing to be cautious about diagnoses given the context, duration and intensity of symptoms. When these terms are used freely, they lose their meaning and can stigmatise behaviour that does not meet clinical criteria. For example, someone may exhibit egocentric behaviour from time to time, but this does not necessarily mean that they are suffering from a personality disorder. The misuse of such terms also undermines the experiences of people who actually struggle with these disorders, trivialising their experiences and contributing to social stigma.

3. Labels as “self-fulfilling prophecies”

Research suggests that labelling others can shape not only how we interact with them, but also their behaviour. This phenomenon is described by the Pygmalion effect, developed by Rosenthal and Jacobson, indicating that the expectations of some people can influence the behaviour of others. 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 that someone is engaging in manipulation, we may treat them with suspicion, which may trigger defensive or hostile behaviour in response. In this way, labelling can create a vicious cycle in which the behaviour we expect becomes the behaviour we actually get.

4. Limiting empathy and understanding

Labels are reductive – they focus on one selected aspect and ignore the broader context of a person’s life and experiences. Meanwhile, there is a clear conclusion from research on empathy and perspective taking – understanding the thoughts, feelings and motivations of others requires us to go beyond superficial judgments. For example, someone who appears to be seeking to control the immediate environment may in fact be acting in this way because of fear or the need to stay safe in a given situation. By labelling such a person as “toxic”, we turn off empathy, which consequently prevents us from understanding their deeper needs or the root cause of their behaviour.

5. Negative dynamics in relationships

When we give someone a negative label, there is generally an escalation of conflict instead of a resolution. According to Gottman and Silver’s study, criticism and contempt are the two most damaging 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” behaviour, in which one person feels unfairly criticised and the other feels justified in their judgment. Instead of fostering open communication or mutual problem-solving, labelling leads to blaming and introduces emotional distance, while destroying trust and intimacy.

Three strategies for label-free communication

Compared to the practice of labelling, it is much more constructive to focus on specific behaviours and their consequences. This approach encourages understanding and behaviour change without resorting to oversimplification or judgment. The following techniques can provide support in applying this method:

1. Focusing on behaviour rather than character

Instead of attributing a fixed characteristic to someone, let’s describe a specific behaviour and its impact on us. This moves the conversation from the level of blaming to the level of understanding.

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

The technique is rooted in Nonviolent Communication, which emphasises observation instead of judgments, thus reducing defensive reactions and promoting 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: “It’s always about you!”, say: “I feel ignored when our conversations focus only on your experiences. I will be happy to share what’s on my mind”.

The technique encourages taking personal responsibility for one’s emotions and encourages cooperation rather than blaming.

3. Setting boundaries with respect for the other person

If someone’s behaviour affects us negatively, it is important to set boundaries without resorting to negative labels. Boundaries should focus on our response instead of trying to control the other person.

Example: Instead of: “You’re toxic and I can’t handle it anymore!”, say: “I value our relationship, but I need some space when conversations become heated. I’ll be happy to return to this topic once we’ve both calmed down”.

The technique is designed to protect well-being while maintaining respect for the other person.

The brain vs. cognitive distortions and simplifications

It may be that labelling is not due to malice, as our brain tries to simplify judgments and thinking about various phenomena to save energy. Because of this, cognitive distortions and simplifications are created, from which it is only a step to labelling. This phenomenon can bring a lot of harm to those around us, as well as to ourselves. So it is worth looking at your own thoughts with care. It is also important to remember that professional diagnosis of mental disorders is a task for specialists – psychologists and psychiatrists.

^References:

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., 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.}