The Predictive Power of -isms

Or, A Framework for Testing Your Labels

The older I get, the less I trust labels.

I’ve become less fond of using them myself. Whereas years ago I would have been comfortable describing everything from my sociopolitical beliefs to my religious understanding of the world to my nutritional philosophy each with their own labels, nowadays I am only steadfastly comfortable and happy with applying a label to my religious beliefs.

(Now, this particular label captures a lot but for reasons I will allude to below.)

This is neither jadedness nor a desire to not be put in a box. In fact, boxes are nice. They make decisions and predictions easier and mean you have to use less mental energy on things to which the boxes apply. But if the boxes break down or the decisions made because of what the box would imply turn out to be sub-optimal decisions, you have to take a step back and make the uncomfortable decision to do away with the box entirely.

I’ve come to think it it is wise to apply a label or ascribe to a particular -ism (e.g., libertarianism, socialism, centrism, paleo-ism, keto-ism, Catholicism, etc.) if and only if that -ism carries with it strong predictive power. In other words, if you use a label to make shorthand decisions or judgements and those judgements or decisions prove to be wrong more often than they are right, that’s a bad label. You should avoid boxing your thinking or positioning into a label if that label doesn’t carry with it predictive power.

The cost of being led astray by bad -isms may appear to be low at first — what’s the harm with a decent-but-not-great heuristic or shorthand after all? — but once you factor in the cumulative effect of repeated sub-optimal decisions in one realm of your life over time, the cost becomes more obvious.

Then factor in the opportunity cost — you are using a bad ism when you could be using a better one you are excluded from adopting, or, even better, developing your own personal code of operations — and operating by bad isms becomes inexcusable.

There are two examples that come to mind. The first is subjective to the individual. The second is more objective and matter-of-fact.

Nutritional -isms

Nutrition is a field full of -isms. Keto, paleo, vegan, vegetarian, whole food, pescatarian, gluten-free, carnivore, etc. are all their own -isms (an -ism need not end in -ism). They’re philosophical or social shorthands to make decisions and positioning to others easier.

“Do you have a vegetarian menu?” is a shorthand for saying, “Do you have a menu that includes dishes without meat?” The implication here being that this person, for whatever reason, has found that vegetarianism is the best nutritional -ism for them.

Now let’s apply the predictive power framework to this decision. Becoming or staying vegetarian makes sense if vegetarianism, and its implied approach to health and nutrition, carries a high predictive power for this person.

“Do they feel healthier after eating a vegetarian diet?” is the simplest way of testing this over time.

“Are they actually healthier? Are their blood test numbers improving? Is their visceral body fat decreasing? What about their metabolic markers? Their micronutrient panel? Their sleep? Their hormones?” is the more complex way of testing this over time.

If becoming or adopting vegetarianism makes these markers worse then vegetarianism carries a low predictive power for this person. It would be silly and self-destructive to stay vegetarian over time. This person would be better off dropping this -ism and testing new approaches for nutrition — ideally free from any other kinds of -isms until he has a better indicator of which -ism, if any, is worth pursuing here.

So the predictive power framework can be subjective to the individual’s needs and perceptions.

Socio-Political -isms

Socio-political fields are also rife with -isms. Libertarianism, conservatism, socialism, anarchism, social democracy, republicanism, liberalism, nationalism, etc. Testing these is, more often than not, an objective matter, not a subjective matter. The predictive power of socialism isn’t something left up to the feeling of the person calling themselves a socialist. Either socialism achieves the ends its proponents predict it will or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it should be discarded for either an ala carte approach or another -ism.

The example that comes to mind in conversation for me here is free trade and the liberalization of China question.

For decades, free traders (side note: this is a difficult group to put a particular label on because it’s a subset of socio-politics — as much as I don’t like the way its become a catch-all, I think neoliberals is a good label here, or simply “free traders”) made the case for opening additional trade with China on the prediction that it would liberalize the authoritarian regime over time. After all, trade with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact liberalized those countries, so why not China? Free trader-ism seemed to pass the predictive power framework at first glance here.

Decades later after opening trade with China, it seems like free trader-ism doesn’t pass a predictive power framework anymore, at least on the question of liberalization and human rights. China is richer and the basic quality of life of the average citizen of China has improved, but the country appears more authoritarian at home and abroad than it did in 1990. Now it’s just a rich authoritarian state. Wonderful.

So the predictive power framework says we should discard free trader-ism, at least when using it as an -ism with respect to human rights and liberalization.

Experience and -isms

By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

— Matthew 7:16-20, DRA, emphases added

Personally, the implication from this isn’t some kind of holier-than-thou distaste of labels but rather an approach to labels as useful if they bear the fruit they say they will in the real world. The reality is that since the real world is so messy and complex, most labels will melt away (especially those of the socio-political nature, though the ones that acknowledge the messiness of the world may be better equipped to survive). But those that do should be investigated more deeply. If they continue to show predictive strength, scrutinize them further.

For me, this is a core reason why I converted (reverted? I was baptized as an infant but was a poor catechumen for decades) to Christianity — specifically Catholic Christianity. The predictive power it carries, not just about the world at large with its complex social interactions but also about myself and the depths and trials of the human experience (distilled so well in both the Gospels and the works of Augustine and Aquinas), humbles me daily.