Facing with no box
You might not understand the title of this post, unless perhaps you are from a cricketing nation but it doesn't matter, this isn't about cricket, it is about boxes and my confusion over whether I have one or not.
I find it interesting that people don't want to be generalized and stereotyped by others but, they are all to willing to label themselves, place constraints upon themselves. Conservative, liberal, left, right, anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-socialist, voluntaryist, straight, gay... blah, blah... the list goes on forever as well as combinations of them like a smorgasbord of conceptual identification picked at and chosen like pizza toppings.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care too much how people identify themselves nor how much contradiction they have between the position they claim and their behaviors, which is generally a lot. I just don't know what I would ever call myself. Ok, I guess I do identify as straight but it is also possible, I just haven't met the right man yet (I am quite picky).
Today, I was exchanging a few comments with @personz about a topic I know very little officially on and realized, I know very little officially on anything. It is not that I am completely unread but for the most part, my knowledge is gained through experience and observation of my environment, and the people within it.
There is nothing wrong with this however, it means that I am missing the label vocabulary so, even if I did want to label myself, I don't know what categories I would fit into. A few people have called me things before but, I don't think it is savory to repeat them here.
In my opinion, the boxing labels restrict options and too often people who subscribe to one box or another don't actually know what those things are or, there are various forms that all get labelled under the same box, like religious labels.
It is entirely possible that the person who adheres most closely to the tenets of any particular religion may not know of that religion at all, they just happen to behave in the same way. A child can be charitable without understanding charity or, like a toddler, a tyrant without understanding tyranny.
The other problem that happens when one identifies with the labels is that as one experiences the world more fully, it is easy to minimize what appears outside of the box and doesn't gel with the 'world-view' rather than investigate whether it has value. The identification with the label is an attachment to it which means that to change, is to lose it and to question it becomes a personal attack.
And this is where it gets difficult when it comes to discussions and openness as it is impossible to then hold an objective and frank talk on a topic without causing offence if the topic is on something that one or the other identifies with. For example, @personz and I were talking across some areas that broached the morality of gene manipulation, abortion and the selection of embryos for stronger genetic outcomes like intelligence.
People don't like to think of things like intelligence being an inherited trait as it opens up too many societal cans of worms that not many people want to deal with and many of those that do, use it to feed their own skewed (and labelled) agendas. Rather than open discussions and public discourse that could lead to greater understanding, people will fight for the labels they identify with against labels they dislike.
One of the stupidest systems in the world are governments and their various political parties. While all claim to want 'what's best', they spend most of their time and resources fighting against each other, regardless if the other has an idea that is 'what's best'.
The issue is that I find personally on labeling myself is that it limits me, it is a chain but, we as humans are much more spectrum and fluid i our approaches to the world and if we could actually really see ourselves clearly, we would find so many contradictions in our thoughts and behaviors that it would be impossible to find a label that suits.
But, people like their labels, people like their boxes, tribes and feelings that they belong to some group or another. It makes them feel special and in most cases, superior to those who are not in that same group. The desire to belong is closely linked to the desire to be superior over others and time and time again it can be observed as people argue that their view is right, and those of other's are wrong.
Right and wrong are human concepts that guide our individual and group behaviors and dynamics in various ways but again, these concepts are fluid, they are not absolute which means what is right today could be wrong tomorrow and what is wrong at this moment may be the most acceptable thing next week.
This is not to say that there is no moral right, it is just that it will change over time as we grow and experience our word and hopefully, we will be better off for it. However, if all of the labels people identify with are slowing to a halt many of the discussions that should take place, perhaps it is time people start reviewing the benefits of identification wit labels at all.
But, I don't really know about this stuff so, best read a book and listen to someone else tell you who you are and how to be. That way, you can always act rightly in the eyes of your peers but never necessarily need be right.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
I'm usually quite picky about the length of the posts that I read, but make an exception in your case due to the high quality.
Hang in there, I'm sure the man of your dreams will come along someday, in spite of your exceedingly high standards.
But, hey, don't let me box you in......
They say there is someone for everyone.... (said wistfully)
In all honesty, the photo of the hula girl drew me into this article but once here I found this interesting. I have some experience with people identifying themselves in a nontraditional manner- and I'm fine with that.
what annoys me somewhat is when people feel the need to identify in a manner that is waaaayyyyyyyy out in left field and still expect the world to bend over backwards to accept it.
And then next week, they choose something at the other end of the spectrum and expect the world to change for them again.
Never worked out what box I am meant to be in. I haven't worried about job titles and have never had the need for one. Why label yourself as you are just limiting yourself. Never got it and never will.
call me what you want, just pay me.
I am what I am and I is what I is (the lack of proper grammar is intentional). I don't worry about labels but I find that a lot of people want to put others in those "boxes" mainly due to laziness. Why bother to take the time to get to know someone if we can just delegate them to the opposing team.
Been awhile since I heard that term
People like their boxes it gives them clarity and purpose . On the same token it also limits them as they struggle to conform to the ever changing statistic .
When you come right down to it a box , it is nothing more than a manipulation tool used by others to control an outcome
It sets the stage for polarization or support, to build an army or live in fear of one....
Absolutely, to label ourselves and to belong to particular box as u call it is only going to make us all feel some superiority over others.. It is a sickness... Rather one should have an intellect to accept and rectify the flaws that one got.. Be more welcoming and debate in the most Intellectual way..
Nice article, thanks for provoking thought.
On the topic of intelligence being genetic. I think there is a potential problem here because intelligence is a socially-constructed idea. For example, Bill Gates would have been considered stupid in an early, agrarian culture, because he would presumably not have been good at choosing crops or chopping wood. However, in the post-industrial, microcomputer-oriented society of the 1980s he was considered intelligent.
Our measure of intelligence is highly subjective and environmentally dependent. We have no objective way of determining it. Standardized testing (like an IQ test) just awards marks to its own socially-constructed conception of 'intelligence'.
As environment changes, measures of intelligence change. Intelligence, in its rawest form, is perhaps the capacity to survive environmental change, not specialization in any field, or ability to meet an arbitrary 'scientific' definition of 'intelligence'. What is intelligent behaviour at one point in time, or environment, may be unintelligent in another. I'm not sure intelligence can be genetically transcribed since our genes are unaware of our contemporary, arbitrary, social definitions of the syllable sounds that make up the word 'intelligence'.
I totally agree with your point on government: A huge waste of resources and time.
Not necessarily as you make the assumption that he wouldn't be able to use his intelligence to adapt to that environment. That is the measure of intelligence.
The standardized testing (IQ) although imperfect generally indicates a persons toolset and even though not all adaptive, if that was the only measure given, those with higher IQ will generally outperform those with lower in all kinds of fields where thinking skills are required.
The socially constructed idea seems to be that intelligence doesn't matter and everyone is born with the same potential. time doesn't really come into it, adaptability of intelligence to the task at hand does. Assuming that someone who is a highly intelligent business person, couldn't be a highly intelligent farmer is a very large assumption.
The way IQ tests are used is ridiculous of course and being intelligent is useless if one does nothing with it. The person who uses what they have to improve will always outperform the one who stands idle.
Thank you for an interesting conversation. I'd like to explore this point a bit more:
What I would offer for consideration, is that Bill Gates was not intelligent, but was 'considered intelligent'. Because the measure of 'intelligence' in the 1980s and the decades following was predicated on dominance, financial power, and manipulation. These same 'qualities' would not have been rewarded in an earlier agrarian society because they would have threatened the community's ability to grow and harvest food.
Much of what we, today, still regard as 'intelligence' is often extremely unintelligent behaviour. Witness, for example, those 'brilliant' mathematicians who spend all their time devising high-frequency trading systems which interact parasitically with our economic systems. Or 'brilliant' lawyers who spend their time defending corrupt institutions.
I suspect that an IQ test is simply a measure of how good a person is at an IQ test.
I do agree with you that intelligence exists. It is just probably impossible to measure, since it is the sum of a person's actions across their lifetime.
I would measure it by observing a persons' love, compassion, creativity and connectedness in harmony with the ecosystem and their community. But there is no ruler that accurately measures this, only a general feeling of something beautiful unfolding.
I label myself as a voluntaryist. Maximizing individual liberty is my objective. My goal is to have all human interaction voluntary. Did the adults consent? Is everything voluntary? Then it is none of my business. Labels do matter, but definitions change. A good example is "classical liberal." I would consider myself one, but most people think of "liberal" as a socialist. Speak and write about objectives therefore. Avoid labels. What we seek, what we are willing to die for in fact, is what's important.
We must have been on similar wavelengths at some point. "Labels" is something that I've been trying to dodge of late. As useful as boxing, pigeon holing and labeling things is in keeping your environment neat and tidy, I find it really isn't very useful when used for people.
Would you believe it, I went on my own rant about superiority just two days ago! 😆 You're so right, belonging and superiority are so close that they do indeed seem to get mixed up.
I was just thinking along these lines earlier this evening. I was at the park across the street with a couple of my grand kids. This woman and a couple friends comes along and I was having a real hard time with the language they used polluting my space, it was horrid. She looked about my oldest sons age, I thought to myself that this may have been the only place for me to afford to buy back in the day but thankfully there was a park in front of me, a highway in back of me, a car at the ready to take my kids to the other side of town for school that gave me a advantage to keep my kids up close and separated from the likes of that. As much as being in a box isn't that great sometimes in can come in handy.