Last week, I attended the symposium of the Neurodiversity Network Netherlands, where psychiatrist Floortje Scheepers was among the speakers. She discussed the usefulness of labels, sparking my contemplation. Can we move towards a different approach to differences among individuals?
Autism, ADHD, ADD, dyslexia, borderline personality disorder—all these terms can be found in the DSM-5, the comprehensive manual of psychiatry. However, according to Floortje Scheepers from UMC Utrecht, the evidence for these conditions is rather thin. In fact, the correlation among people with these different conditions may be stronger than within the labels themselves. This prompted me to delve deeper into the concept of labels, including how introversion is often used as one.
Labels can be beneficial in forming communities and fostering understanding. They provide a means to describe our experiences and connect with others who share similar traits. For introverted individuals, the label "introversion" can help in better understanding ourselves and recognizing specific needs. It can provide a sense of acknowledgment, validation, and help us accept and empower ourselves.
Likewise, labels such as autism, ADHD, and giftedness can assist people in understanding their own identity and feeling connected to others. They can also grant access to valuable information, resources, and support networks. These labels can be the starting point of a journey towards self-discovery and personal growth.
Prejudice
However, there are limitations to the use of labels. They can lead to oversimplified generalizations, disregarding individual experiences and differences. This can foster prejudice, stereotypes, and stigma, reducing people to a single characteristic without acknowledging their complexity as individuals.
Moreover, labels can reinforce self-limiting beliefs. If we solely define ourselves based on a label, we may restrict our possibilities. It is essential to recognize that we are more than just one label—we are unique individuals with diverse talents and interests.
Dichotomy
Scheepers discussed the dichotomy between "ill" and "healthy," but is it really that black and white? What if we adopted a normal distribution approach, similar to how personality is measured? Instead of assigning labels like ADHD, autism, or giftedness, we could assign percentages to traits such as "energy level," "capacity for empathy," or "intellectual capacity."
By doing so, we would achieve a more nuanced understanding, just as someone is not strictly 100% introverted or extroverted. In the realm of personality, the categorical boxes of Jung and MBTI have long been abandoned, yet they seem to persist in the DSM-5. Perhaps it is time for a revision?
In my opinion, it is necessary to reconsider how we use labels. Let us acknowledge that they can be valuable tools for fostering understanding and community, but also recognize their limitations. Let us strive for a more inclusive approach, embracing the complexity and diversity of individuals, without reducing them to singular labels.
