Identities can backfire though because people who don't identify as your identity have different ideas about that identity than you might.
For example I'll never say "I'm a programmer" in a mixed social gathering of people I don't already know. It's a total conversation killer for anyone who isn't a programmer (i.e. most other people) and I really try to avoid bringing it up at least until I have found something else in common with the person I'm talking to.
And in general, I think people who make $IDENTITY the main feature of their personality will have difficulty outside of that one social group.
> Identities can backfire though because people who don't identify as your identity have different ideas about that identity than you might.
That can be true, and I think it's particularly common with imposed, rather than adopted identities. In fact, people having particular ideas about you that aren't necessarily true is the reason a lot of imposed identities exist in the first place. There's not a lot you can really do about it. I suppose you can try very hard to not identify with anything, but that's not always an option, and even when it is it would be a very lonely existence.
> And in general, I think people who make $IDENTITY the main feature of their personality will have difficulty outside of that one social group.
Another way of saying that is that people who aren't well rounded will have trouble in a lot of social situations. I agree with that, but I don't think it's a problem related to having identities so much as it is someone restricting themselves to a single focal identity.
I've tried introducing myself as "I'm a human", you'd think everyone would agree with this label but it gets unenthusiastic reactions. The followup "You're human too, right?" is even worse.
It gets unenthusiastic reactions because for someone to effectively communicate they need to figure out broadly who you are. By pointing out the obvious you are refusing to give up any information about yourself. It's nearly as bad as saying "I don't want you talking to me".
>you'd think everyone would agree with this label
"We identify with the same label" isn't the important part. What is important is that the other person can place you somewhere.
Well, there are some labels that get enthusiasm, and some that don't. Like, of the ones mentioned in the article, "I’m an introvert", "I’m a Libra", "I’m Gen Z", I've actually had some good conversations about conversation styles, astrological sign personalities, and different generations. But when I bring up being human, nobody is willing to get into cognitive biases or the daily mishaps of living. I understand that people have different reactions, but I don't really understand why they react the way they do - it seems like a culture issue.
"I’m an introvert", "I’m a Libra", "I’m Gen Z" - people mention these to separate themselves out of the group, or general population. "I'm a Libra, which is unlike most of you here, therefore my failings are unique and my successes are what makes me special".
When you bring up "being human", you're including everyone else in the good and bad things you attribute to being a human - which is likely to create awkwardness and generate a lot of feelings, most of them not very nice.
>I've tried introducing myself as "I'm a human", you'd think everyone would agree with this label but it gets unenthusiastic reactions. The followup "You're human too, right?" is even worse.
> I don't really understand why they react the way they do - it seems like a culture issue.
I'll dissect it with precision in order to assist you in escaping this particular social and mental trap.
Human social communication absolutely depends on fundamental shared assumptions.
Examples:
Murder is fundamentally bad
Literacy is fundamentally good
Even more fundamental than those:
Everyone literally has a head on their shoulders
Virtually everyone has a face on their head
Everyone is human
Whatever else your or anyone's unique thoughts or self-categorizations, those assumptions must exist or people won't want to engage with you.
Trying to bring them up as a point of discussion will place you in the range of "too weird" to "too crazy" to speak with.
In your specific case, I'd personally take the opener as a type of conversational manipulation. On top of being highly weird, because its an absolute assumption. Parallel to the type of thing that door to door salesmen say.
That is, they pose a question that they know 99% of people will feel compelled to agree with in order to force further conversation. That's you, with this opener.
Personally, I love not answering such questions from door to door sales people that are used to almost 100% compliance.
I give sales people the time of day who instead take a simple and sincere approach.
People are giving you a bad reaction because its a shared unspoken assumption, and because they are feeling manipulated. So, they feel manipulated by someone who is being very weird.
In contrast, introversion, age, and astrological signs are not shared assumptions. They are new information that therefore can be a socially acceptable substrate for further conversation.
Try talking to people about themselves, using simple questions and sincerity. It has a high success rate.
For example I'll never say "I'm a programmer" in a mixed social gathering of people I don't already know. It's a total conversation killer for anyone who isn't a programmer (i.e. most other people) and I really try to avoid bringing it up at least until I have found something else in common with the person I'm talking to.
And in general, I think people who make $IDENTITY the main feature of their personality will have difficulty outside of that one social group.