[HN Gopher] Psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid ___________________________________________________________________ Psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid Author : limbicsystem Score : 237 points Date : 2022-11-16 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.frontiersin.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.frontiersin.org) | leetrout wrote: | It seems pointless, difficult and dangerous all at the same time | to try to police our speech and writing. | | Some things have benign usage that is not harming anyone or any | group of people and convey the intended meaning better than | alternative words. | ebiester wrote: | However, this is a list for students, teachers, and | researchers, and within that context, precision is important. | This group of terms in the article is not about policing - | something like "crazy" or "schizophrenic". It's about technical | terminology within that particular context. | | It also was a good article about the problems behind the mental | model. | leetrout wrote: | To pick one example, I don't think expanding the use of | fetish to include an obsessive and fanatic interest of things | outside sexual desire is bad. | | But I also do not write academic / published papers. | lofatdairy wrote: | Did you read the article? Because even with a cursory scroll | would you find that it's clearly not about policing speech. For | example: | | > (22) p = 0.000. Even though this statistical expression, used | in over 97,000 manuscripts according to Google Scholar, makes | regular cameo appearances in our computer printouts, we should | assiduously avoid inserting it in our Results sections. This | expression implies erroneously that there is a zero probability | that the investigators have committed a Type I error | | Oh no. Big bad PC culture is stopping us from stating | fallacious statistical conclusions. | | Please don't dilute the quality of discussions on this site by | posting reactionary nonsense before even reading something to | which you're responding. | bheadmaster wrote: | I think there's a difference between police-ing speech, and | clarifying it. Language is hard, and misunderstandings are | surprisingly common, and many world's evils comes from pure | misunderstanding. | | Most misunderstandings arise from people having different | understanding of same words - so approaching agreement on the | meaning of words is important to reduce misunderstandings. The | problem is the language is self-manifesting - the word gains | the meaning from the way people use it, even when the meaning | differs from the original (perhaps academic or technical) | meaning. | | So one side has to stand back - either academia (in this case, | psychiatry), or the general population. Since academia largely | relies on solid, defined meanings of words, while the general | population relies on "how other people are currently using it", | it's supposed to be easier to change the usage by the general | population. Although it's pretty hard to do both ways. | | Otherwise, we end up with words having two distinct meanings, | one professional, and other layman. | mantas wrote: | This is neverending wack-a-mole. With some virtue signalling | credits to be made in process. | harimau777 wrote: | Due to the second law of thermodynamics, all work is | neverending wack-a-mole. That in of itself doesn't mean | that the work is useless. | eckza wrote: | On some level I agree; however, this article in particular | is not a collection of virtue signals. | | If I have failed to see how this is not the case, I would | appreciate some examples. | astrange wrote: | Virtue signalling is a good thing and an essential part of | leadership. | tboyd47 wrote: | > (3) Autism epidemic. | | How breathtakingly insulting to the 100,000s of parents and | caregivers of autistic children over the past 30 years, who have | sacrificed 1,000s of hours, $MM of lost revenue, their own | health, their own goals, and even attention that could have been | paid to their other children and their community, exerting heroic | efforts and sparing no expense to reach into a single child's | mind to teach him or her basic skills and share some kind of | human connection, starting from zero with no answers, no | training, and sometimes not even family or a support network. | | Unlike these scientists, most of these parents and caregivers | will not be thanked or applauded for their work by society, but | they only did it because it happened to be their child. | | Let's not acknowledge that that their efforts correspond to a | real event-- instead, let's dismiss all of the potential links | uncovered and directions for future research, and wave it all | away, feeling self-assured that we are being skeptical and | rigorous while eating up taxpayer money from these same parents | who still have no answers. | davidscolgan wrote: | I have autism and only discovered it two years ago at age 33. I | have been intensely researching it. | | The book Neurotribes presents a very in-depth picture of the | history of autism and the research and theories for the past | century. | | This is not saying that autism is not real, that it is not a | thing to understand, or something that should not be | researched. It is only saying that the idea that autism is On | The Rise in a terrifying way, that it is something to be | feared, is misguided. | | As this article says, and as the book Neurotribes explores in | depth, autism used to have much more strict criteria for | diagnosis. Connor, the leading researcher of autism for much of | the 20th century, was convinced autism should only cover the | most severe cases, and he did not like the spectrum idea. As | time went on and it was realized that many more persons may | have some aspect of autism even if it isn't extremely severe | led to the DSM making the criteria much looser. The authors of | the DSM particularly noted that this may make it seem like the | prevalence was increasing when in fact it was simply more | widely diagnosed. | | The reason for caution of using the term "autism epidemic" is | that it spooked many parents into thinking there was a horrible | plague afoot, and that it needed to be cured. | | My current understanding of it in myself and wider society is | that it has always been around, that those on the spectrum hold | an important place in society, and that rather than finding a | cure (if this is an epidemic) is more important than | understanding autism and advocating for services to help those | who have autistic children. | | This absolutely does not seek to discredit the indeed heroic | efforts many parents have gone to to support their children, in | fact by being more precise about what is happening the hope is | that autistics like myself can have even better outcomes. | [deleted] | killjoywashere wrote: | My wife is a pediatric occupational therapist and I'm a | physician in government. I'm still not sure which direction | your comment is pointing: is it insulting that the term Autism | epidemic is exists, or that this paper suggests it should be | avoided? | tboyd47 wrote: | Excuse me if that wasn't clear. | | It's insulting that the paper suggests that the epidemic is | not real. | llbeansandrice wrote: | You're misinterpreting the purpose of the article. It's not | saying that the epidemic wasn't real, it's arguing that | calling it an "epidemic" implies that there is more autism | than there was previously. While they posit that it's | simply due to better diagnosis. | | There are not more people with autism. There are more | people that have been diagnosed. Those are different things | and calling it an "epidemic" implies that it's the former. | Kranar wrote: | Then you went on a very angry and incoherent rant for | nothing. You seem to be angry because you don't understand | what the word epidemic means. | | In the spirit of this article, epidemic means something | specific; the rapid spread of a disease over a short period | of time in a specific region. The article is not saying | that autism isn't real or that people aren't suffering from | it, the article is saying that it's not an epidemic. The | article is saying there is no rapid increase in autism over | a specific region but rather there's been a change in how | it's diagnosed, people's awareness of the disease and that | if these factors had been held constant, autism rates would | also have been constant. | tboyd47 wrote: | If it was for nothing, then it was only because I chose | the wrong audience. Nothing about my comment indicates I | misunderstood the intent of the authors. | [deleted] | larve wrote: | The paper suggests that what looks like an epidemic is due to | better diagnosis, so that people previously not diagnosed now | are. It doesn't discredit autism. | [deleted] | vvpan wrote: | For the sake of the Hacker News audience I wish "introvert" was | its own category and not under "Personality Type". It is baseless | pseudo-science but comes up in tech-related circles all too | often. | jrm4 wrote: | If anything, I find this to be a, perhaps unintentional, damning | indictment of psychology and psychiatry in general. | | If your discipline cannot clearly define things in a reasonably | concrete and provable way, such that it is readily apparent to | _the patients_ and the public at large, and also such that the | language effectively clarifies itself out of necessity, then much | of what you do needs to be strongly questioned -- and often not | taken too seriously. | | I'm reminded of e.g. the term "neurodivergent." It's a good thing | to look at, but how do you _falsify_ it? Who can stand up and say | "I'm definitely not neurodivergent?" If you can't do that, the | term is not very helpful. | 2devnull wrote: | It's more common to hear these terms of misunderstanding in | main stream medicine. Psychologists know there isn't a | "chemical imbalance" which "causes depression." Overworked GPs | and others without better training are the ideal audience for | this piece. | c7b wrote: | Frankly, if your standard for a good definition is that it is | _readily apparent_ to _the public at large_ , then pretty much | every academic discipline will fail your rigour test. Even (or | especially) mathematics. Which should make it clear that this | is an unfair and useless standard to hold psychology up to. | jrm4 wrote: | Fair, "at large" is a bit extreme. This is a spectrum. But | psychology appears to be _far worse_ than the others, even | reading from this paper. I 'm a lawyer, and even law isn't | _this_ bad. "Symptoms are unobservable?" | [deleted] | lofatdairy wrote: | Actually symptoms being unobservable is not only not unique | to psychology (the distinction is well known in medicine), | it's a core challenge within the practice of medicine and | one of its historic tensions. Yeah, a patient might be | complaining of chest pain, but the reason for the complaint | is going to be unknown to you until you start the process | of diagnosis. Chest pain is a symptom of many conditions, | and you can't even trust that there's an observable cause, | you can only believe what the patient tells you. This was | obviously even worse until modern developments of things | like MRIs and X-rays. | | Compare that to signs, where you can see that a patient has | say, a lesion or is clearly coughing. | light_hue_1 wrote: | This is basically the case in much of medicine. | | Pain is not observable. It's reported. Loss of vision or | hearing isn't observable, it's reported. | | You can run tests to get an idea of whether any of these | are happening. But you are not observing any of these | symptoms. You're observing behavior and inferring what | kinds of symptoms the person is experiencing and what | degree. | rhino369 wrote: | But is a runny nose (observable) not a symptom of a cold? | Is fever not a symptom of Covid? | | If that's how medicine actually uses the term, okay, | sometimes terms of art clash with the plain meaning, but | damn that is a pretty weird distinction, as a layman. | llbeansandrice wrote: | In the US those would be "signs", not symptoms. Symptoms | are things like pain, fatigue, etc. Signs are observable. | I think other countries/languages often use "subjective" | symptoms and "objective" symptoms. | | It's a very useful distinction between things that only | the patient can tell you versus things that can be | observes and tested for. How do you run a test to | determine if a patient is "really" experiencing chest | pain? You cannot. You can run tests to try and determine | an obvious cause for that symptom, but there is no test | to tell you if say perhaps the patient is lying about | having chest pain. | rhino369 wrote: | It might be a useful distinction, but it's weird | terminology to a layman. Because in non-medical lingo, | those are symptoms in the USA. | c7b wrote: | Law, really? Aren't there a lot of legal terms (like | 'ownership', 'possession' 'contract',...) that have precise | legal definitions that may differ in crucial aspects from | their colloquial usage? | | I think you're confusing a definition being _easy to | understand_ with it being well-defined. Mathematical | definitions are often hard to grasp exactly _because_ they | are so well-defined. If you want something to be easily | understandable by a lot of people (especially outside the | discipline), you 'll usually have to sacrifice rigor. | lazide wrote: | In my unfortunately extensive experience with legal | matters as a non lawyer, there really aren't many legal | terms with material _reduction_ in meanings when used | legally. For the most part, like in medicine, a less | commonly used word is used instead (often in another less | commonly used language, such as Latin). | | For example, most people would consider a contract to be | something written down that says 'contract'. A few know | it can be verbal too. | | When really, it could be verbal, video, scrawled in blood | on the side of a fence, or any number of other forms, and | really covers any agreement that meets certain criteria | (generally that there is some form of payment or | consideration, an offer, and an acceptance - think 'quid | pro quo' or something for something). | | 99% of the time, the public is right. The other times, | something went really wrong somewhere and someone did | something pretty weird and dumb for it to matter. | | In engineering, physics, math, it's not uncommon to need | SOME unique identifier for the thing, and there are very | specific technical needs for it to even have a | conversation on the topic - and often we've run out of | pronounceable or recognizable symbols, alternative | alphabets, etc. | | So down spin quark it is. | jrm4 wrote: | Ha, contract is a _really bad example_ here, as proven by | the very very wrong term "Smart Contract." | | The thing that is called a "Smart contract" has | _literally no overlap_ with a legal contract; because a | legal contract is the "separate human statements of | agreement that are associated with the action/performance | and usually only needed when the performance goes wrong," | | The "smart contract" is the actual performance. | amanaplanacanal wrote: | That sounds like a standard medical definition. I'm sure | there are technical terms used in the law which differ from | common usage. | bawolff wrote: | > I'm reminded of e.g. the term "neurodivergent." It's a good | thing to look at, but how do you falsify it? Who can stand up | and say "I'm definitely not neurodivergent?" If you can't do | that, the term is not very helpful. | | I mean, that's not a diagnosis. If you mean just generally and | not psychology specific then you are going to have to throw out | most english adjectives. Like you can't falsify "im hungry", | "im smart", "im dumb". | unsupp0rted wrote: | I can easily identify whether or not I'm hungry... and | probably whether or not I'm smart. | | I can't easily identify whether or not I'm neurodivergent, | because I'm not sure what it means or what the opposite would | look like. Does anybody know? | bawolff wrote: | > I can't easily identify whether or not I'm | neurodivergent, because I'm not sure what it means or what | the opposite would look like. Does anybody know? | | The people who are claiming to be neruodivergent would say | its quite obvious to themselves (FWIW, the general | definition is roughly ADHD or Autism, both of which have | more concrete definitions). I was assuming the statement | was about other people verifying the veracity of the | statement not yourself. | | Of course, i don't know how you can easily identify if you | are actually hungry, when you can't even tell if you | actually have a stomach or are just a brain in a | vat/plugged into the matrix. | unsupp0rted wrote: | Even if I'm a brain in a vat, I'm a brain in a vat that | thinks it's hungry. | | But I'm not a brain in a vat that thinks it's | neurodivergent or not neurodivergent because it doesn't | know what that would mean in the first place, and it's | not sure anybody else (assuming other brains in other | vats exist) does either. | jrm4 wrote: | What are you _talking_ about? You can meaningfully falsify | all of those in the context of which they are said. | Booktrope wrote: | So, for all the many things in the world that cannot be defined | in "a reasonably concrete and provable way" or where a | statement cannot be "falsified", no study is worthwhile. | | More or less this position: nothing worthwhile from | Wittgenstein beyond the Tractatus and specifically, forget | about the Philosophical Investigations. | | It's not an indictment of a field that the subject matter is | not susceptible to description in terms that are definitely | falsifiable. Of course, definite terminology can be very | helpful where it does apply, but it can also be used to | oversimplify complex questions in a way that obfuscates them. | But there's no law that nature must always be subject to | description in a "concrete and provable way", especially not by | human languages. By not taking seriously anything but | disciplines that can be boiled down to true-false propositions, | we'd miss huge amounts of knowledge that are useful and | helpful. | | Especially fields like psychology where so many important | observations simply cannot be broken down into concrete | statements or provable propositions in the way you seem to mean | those words. | | On the other hand, it's also very important to be careful of | misuse of terms such as "true" and "false", for example, they | can have very different meanings when we're talking about logic | or observation, answers to examination questions, romance or | religion. In this particular exchange, by true do we mean | scientifically true or logically true? | | Or, how indeed would anyone stand up and say whether something | is "definitely not damning" or "definitely not unintentional" | actually? | zwkrt wrote: | There's a reason that traditionally in America psychology is | taught in a research oriented way. This has the upside of at | least ideally causing psychologist and psychiatrist to have a | curious attitude toward their patients. In a field that is | dealing with something so complicated as people's brains and | their social interactions and their self perceptions and | their bodily health, it's pretty much a necessary condition | to begin from a standpoint of assuming that you don't | understand everything. I think it also has the unfortunate | downside of producing a lot of questionable research though. | | The problem is that in a research paper you do have to have | operational definitions, P values, etc. it's not that these | things are bad but they are not particularly well-suited to | such an ambiguous problem as attempting to explore the human | condition. | | To bring the point back to Wittgenstein, we are forcing | students to talk about "the unspeakable" in scientific | terminology. Bringing in his viewpoint from the | investigations, it feels to me like in the mental health | field we need to be playing a different game than the | scientific research game. Professionals on-the-ground are | doing this, but how to bring that back into the academic | sphere, I don't know what the best solution is. | [deleted] | runarberg wrote: | This is not what the article concludes at all. Every item in | this list is met with alternatives or justifications for | careful considerations and nuance. If anything it celebrates | psychology as a rich field while issuing a warning about | specific problematic terms in use. This is no different from | most other fields. Cosmology also has problematic terms such as | _Grand Unifying Theory_ , even the word _planet_ has issues | within the field of astronomy. This is not a damning indictment | of respective fields, but a sign of maturity, growth, and | healthy debate within the field. | | Your example of "neyrodivergent" is a really bad example for | your case. This term is a laypeople term that captures the | notion that there is a variety in the way people think and | behave, and as a society we tend to accommodate only a subset | of this variety, leaving the rest (the neurodiverce | individuals) in a harder then necessary situations. You don't | need to falsify it because it is not a scientific term. But if | you wanted to disproof it, you would need to show that | cognitive behavior doesn't vary nearly as much as observable | behavior, the very fact that autism exists should be evidence | enough to justify this term. | | I think you might be misunderstanding what _falsifiability_ | means for psychology or other social science (or any science | that uses probability or population statistics in its theories | for that matter). When you have a term that distinguishes a | subgroup from a population, you don't try to disprove it by | looking at an individual, you look at the variance and compare | it with the greater population. If there is no difference in | the variance, then most likely you are using an unhelpful term. | lvass wrote: | The data is pretty clear that psychology and psychiatry sucks | at doing it's job. But it's a hell of a tough job, and using | more meaningful words probably doesn't hurt. | jrm4 wrote: | Exactly: "Meaningful." | | Precisely, it feels like there's a lot of "activity" and | "named ideas" chasing things that may not meaningfully exist? | This is of course symptomatic of "publish or perish" et al, | but I suppose one of the difficulties here is that the paper | is like "here are some bad ideas and trends (fair) so here | are some more to counteract that." | | It really just gives the impression of "wow, these people are | wasting time if they can't even decide on what relatively | accessible words even mean?" | | E.g. The bit on "symptoms" is _crazy_ sounding. | hunter2_ wrote: | I think all disciplines could have a damning list like this. | For example, in software development, we could say "pull | request" is to be avoided in favor of "merge request" (some | progress has definitely been made toward this state, but there | is more to do). | zug_zug wrote: | > (3) Autism epidemic. | | Uh, I'm having more and more trouble believing this is just an | increase in diagnosis rates. That's what we said 13 years ago | when I was graduating college, and yet the rates have actually | increased very dramatically even since 2010 (from 1/68 to 1/44) a | 54% increase. | | I appreciate that it's useful to consider alternative | explanations of data, but presuming an alternative explanation is | valid for over 20 years without hard data? Really? | [deleted] | SoftAnnaLee wrote: | Increased understanding of autism on a societal level. 20 years | ago autism was just, 'weird savant kid who screams and | everybody can't understand why they can't <XYZ>,' disease. 10 | years ago, we saw depictions of autism that were less | stereotypical in mainstream entertainment; which prompted some | to see themselves reflected in these characters, and self- | reflect if they're autistic too. | | In the years since, autism communities on the internet and the | psychological community have come together to help folks | realize that there is a wider spectrum of how autism manifests. | And the increased visibility of autism, and increased societal | understanding of the nuances involved with autism, have led to | folks who previously thought of themselves as neurotypical as | realizing they are autistic too. Who then inform their family | and friends, who may come to realize that they (or their | friends, coworkers, or children) too might be autistic as well. | | It's not an epidemic, it's merely language and labels being | more accurately used within society. | zug_zug wrote: | > It's not an epidemic, it's merely language and labels being | more accurately used within society. | | You can't possibly know that. And shame on you for speaking | so authoritatively on such an important and open scientific | question. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _Nevertheless, the attitude-change techniques used by so-called | "brainwashers" are no different than standard persuasive methods | identified by social psychologists, such as encouraging | commitment to goals, manufacturing source credibility, forging an | illusion of group consensus, and vivid testimonials_ | | The brainwashing techniques used by various cults, criminal gangs | and regimes go far beyond these gentle methods. Particularly, I | sure hope social psychologists don't use torture. (Social | isolation, food deprivation, and much worse.) | hobs wrote: | Depends on if they put you in a mental institution, because | then they definitely do, also physical torture if you act up | enough! | runarberg wrote: | > I sure hope social psychologists don't use torture. | | Read up on psychologist's participation in the Guantanamo | prison camp torture program. Indeed many psychologists did use | torture, and it is something of a really dark spot in the | history of the American Psychology Association. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Did these psychologists think they were helping the greater | good? And who convinced them? | runarberg wrote: | This scandal generated a whole host of reports, it | collapsed the APA leadership. Books have been written about | it. I am not a journalist, nor a historian. And I don't | have enough knowledge about it to answer any detailed | questions about it, other then the fact that it happened. | I'm sure you can find information by googling e.g. "APA | torture" or "James Mitchell" and "Bruce Jessen" the two | most prominent psychologists guilty of torturing people. | marginalia_nu wrote: | The broader history of psychiatry has so many dark spots one | might confuse it for a dalmatian. | enneff wrote: | The broader history of almost any profession/industry is | similarly checkered. Engineering, farming, medicine, | charity/aid... humans will do bad things whatever field | they're in. | cbsmith wrote: | > I sure hope social psychologists don't use torture. | | The phrasing was very specific: " standard persuasive methods | _identified_ by social psychologists ". You don't need to _use_ | a method just because you 've identified it. | yannk wrote: | Not on the list: "Oh, it's just my OCD" -- Either you have been | diagnosed (and consequently suffer from OCD) or you have an | obsessive personality (sometimes a quality). | | But OCD is a diagnosis, abusing it do describe a personality | trait doesn't serve the many many people impacted by the | disorder. | | -- From someone with an affected loved one. | enneff wrote: | There's a great episode of the Australian TV series You Can't | Ask That which interviews a group of OCD sufferers about their | lived experience. It really opened my eyes to just how | appallingly cavalier it is to refer to one's minor neuroses as | "OCD". An excerpt from the show: https://youtu.be/tkrFgKW5LvY | (Australians can stream it on iView) | tacitusarc wrote: | I disagree with the "steep learning curve" point. The X axis is | acquired knowledge, and the Y axis is the effort required. I | don't know why people assume the X axis is time. Not all graphs | are temporal. | falseprofit wrote: | It's standard practice to plot independent variables on the | x-axis and dependent on the y. To my knowledge, this is how | learning curves are typically plotted as well, and the use of | "steep" is usually a misnomer. | | Is there a reason you believe people have this unintuitive plot | in mind, rather than simply conflating with the difficulty of | physically scaling a steep slope? | a1369209993 wrote: | The independent variable is how good you're trying to get, | and the dependent variable is how much effort it costs. | | > a reason you believe people have this [...] plot in mind | | Sample size N += 1, HTH, HAND. | tsumnia wrote: | I disagreed at first, but realized what they were trying to | convey. Specifically "learning curve" is a defined term in | learning theory that represents the accumulation of knowledge. | Like the the "forgetting curve" [1], the use of "curve" | represents at each learning opportunity (or forgetting). | "Learning curve" between intervals would be more akin to | "learning gains". | | So a "learning curve" that is "steep" implies that learning | occurs rapidly; a "forgetting curve" that is "steep" would be | "in one ear and out the other". | | Super pedantic and I don't plan to change my use of steep | learning curve, but I get where the intention is coming from. | | [1] https://www.psychestudy.com/cognitive/memory/ebbinghaus- | forg... | I_complete_me wrote: | Does the steepness of the curve happen earlier or later in the | timeline? | | I imagine that one could spend a long time learning the | fundamentals before getting to a stage where the proficiency | escalates quickly i.e. where the steepness occurs. But the long | time getting there is what the term "steep learning curve" is | about. Like the opposite of taking a long run at jumping off a | cliff. I'm sure that this is easier to show with a graph. | nonrandomstring wrote: | The fine article begins with this rather humble aim that; | | > The goal of this article is to promote clear thinking and clear | writing among students and teachers of psychological science | | How many published papers, or even undergraduate essays contain | such simplifications and misunderstandings? | | I rather think the piece is aimed elsewhere, to the press, | science jornalists, politicians, mid-ranking deciders, mass | media, and pundits whose language is awash with this stuff. | lofatdairy wrote: | Some of these terms are indeed likely to be aimed at | researchers, though I agree that journalism and politicians and | charlatans seem to love pulling from shoddy psychology and | making it even worse with their poor understandings of the | field. For example, they give a number of papers that cite a | p=0.0000 number, which is clearly absurd. p-hacking and dubious | misuse of statistical testing aside, it shows a clear lack of | understanding of what the p-value even is, and what it tells | you, and this is obviously more relevant to researchers than | reporters. I can also speak towards personal experience | regarding "comorbidity", for a while I knew a grad student who | accidentally attached a completely new, incorrect definition to | the term by assuming it mean risk-factor. It's certainly a | blend of really subtle, interesting mistakes that I can easily | see a researcher unfamiliar with the history and philosophy of | science making, and some pretty common tropes that are probably | more often just stereotypes from the "science" section of | popular magazines. | karencarits wrote: | It would probably be difficult publish in a scientific journal | if it was not aimed at other academics - and if it was not | published in a scientific journal, the authors would not get | citations | andsoitis wrote: | What do others here think about casual use of the word "crazy" in | a work setting. For instance, "that's a crazy idea" or "they're | crazy to think ...." | khazhoux wrote: | I don't have any problem with the word _per se_ (it doesn 't | evoke any connection with mental health, if that's where you're | going with it). | | But... it's a dumb and unnecessary word, in the contexts you | mention. When I'm at a meeting and someone says "I'm going to | propose a crazy idea" I always think "Just get on with it, man, | no need to tamp down expectations." | LAC-Tech wrote: | I think I'm tired of constantly worrying if what I say | naturally is becoming yet another "thing I can't say among my | betters without them looking down on me". Is there a list I can | subscribe to? | poszlem wrote: | It's the same as with other words, including the some of the | "x-words" (the n-word, c-word, f-word, p-word, and whatever | else Americans came up with). They should all be possible to | write and utter as long as they are not written and uttered as | a slur. | | Saying that "something is crazy" doesn't really victimize | anybody. Intention should matter much more than it currently | does. I really hope we are at the point where the pendulum | swings back to the place where people understand that again. | croisillon wrote: | i've seen "a crazy idea" replaced by "a wild idea" and i think | it's elegant | alexb_ wrote: | I think it's crazy that we spend time thinking about minor bs | like this instead of spending that effort trying to solve | actual problems. This type of stuff is great for people who | want to feel like they have made a positive change without | actually having accomplished anything of value. | eckza wrote: | `git pull origin main` | Barrin92 wrote: | being precise in your language is of great value, both when | it comes to thinking and communicating. Per Wittgenstein, | "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world". If | you're a software developer you should be familiar with how | important syntactic precision is. | | Someone who runs around the office and complains about | everything being 'so crazy' is genuinely not articulating | anything meaningful but just ranting. And it's quite amazing | how many people can't tell the difference between a rant and | a productive argument. Perceiving this as 'policing' is just | an excuse to not putting an effort into what you think and | say. | sithadmin wrote: | Aside from the communicative value, there's a socio- | political angle to it as well. Speaking in nebulous terms | like calling things 'crazy' without sufficient elaboration | is a great way to alienate people as a new-to-the-org | resource or as an embedded outsider (e.g. consultant). | alexb_ wrote: | Okay, but sometimes things are so crazy. | DonHopkins wrote: | Crazy Eddie really was criminally insane!!! | | 80s Commercial | Crazy Eddie | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml6S2yiuSWE | | The Biggest Retail Fraud In American History - | Masterminds - Crazy Eddie - Eddie Antar Documentary | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws9PGROHZzg | raxxorraxor wrote: | "limits of my language mean the limits of my world". | | The arguments to replace certain words would do the | opposite though. | | On the other hand, sometimes expression is not too | important to transport a point. | khazhoux wrote: | > I think it's crazy that we spend time thinking about minor | bs like this instead of spending that effort trying to solve | actual problems. | | False dichotomy. We all (you included) already spend plenty | of time thinking about "minor bs". A discussion about | language will probably use up less time in your week than you | spent deciding what to get for lunch. | | Personally I don't have any problem with the word "crazy"... | but I don't mind thinking about it for a minute. | jamesrcole wrote: | I think it's worse than that. It makes people have to police | their own thought about what they're going to say, to avoid | stumbling over one of the linguistic trip wires. I think | that's antithetical to creative thought. | whythre wrote: | It also gives power to bad actors who can take advantage of | such 'linguistic tripwires' to invalidate or abuse others. | scubbo wrote: | Counterpoint - mindfully reviewing and examining your | thoughts and speech is an effective way to improve clarity | and to identify unexamined (and perhaps unfounded) | assumptions. | poszlem wrote: | Cool, as long as it's your thoughts and not mine. I have | no problem with other people policing their own speech | and thoughts. My problem starts when they start to | enforce what they found on other people. | PuppyTailWags wrote: | I think it's not great, especially because psychosis, bipolar, | personality disorders, etc. collectively make up enough of the | population that almost certainly one is speaking it in the | company of people who would be called "crazy". But also it's in | way more ubiquitous use than "retarded" so its a far bigger | hill to climb and probably not worth the teeth-pulling until we | can at least stop with OCD, ADHD-squirrel, and other jokes | first. | orangepurple wrote: | Contemplating this is bikeshedding | idlewords wrote: | Bikeshedding needs to go on the HN list of terms to avoid | raxxorraxor wrote: | If that is a challange to you, you might be directly affected? | Although English isn't my native tongue and I learned it on the | internet. I might be resilient... | mc32 wrote: | I have no issue with it. My only caveat is I would refrain from | using it around someone who is "unstable". | | I don't look forward to prescriptive definitions, grammars and | usage. I will use those for technical writing and use "style | guides" but not for casual communication and conversation. | ebiester wrote: | Regardless of "wokism," it might stop meaning from being | transmitted to those who do find the term problematic. | | Absurd or ridiculous both capture the same meaning without | losing precision. And at this point, we can look at it more as | a function of deprecated terminology - people don't listen to | you and think you're a bad person if you use said terminology, | they just think you're old. | | However, to be clear, this is off-topic for the article at | hand. | yamtaddle wrote: | Worrying about something as mild as "crazy" is really, really | niche. Maybe that'll change, but for 99% or more of the not- | terminally-online crowd, nobody thinks a thing of it today. | Even more so outside the US. | | I, for one, am overall skeptical that being very concerned | about people using any term relating to a human malady or | misfortune figuratively is a trend that will continue to | flourish even to the extent that it has so far. | bvirb wrote: | I can certainly see why someone with a history of being called | crazy for whatever reason might be hurt when someone at works | casually calls them "crazy" for something, even if they | understand it was meant differently in that context. | | I think once you know something might accidentally upset | someone it's up to you to decide whether you want to take that | chance. I try to avoid taking that chance where possible, I | really don't like the idea of accidentally hurting someone. | | I can also see why people are upset about their language being | policed. I imagine every generation feels this way as society | changes around them. I'm sure there are lots of examples of | probably silly things we've policed ourselves out of saying | that probably didn't amount to much, but I'm also happy we | mostly don't use the pervasive casual racism of the 50's, or | the pervasive casual homophobia of when I was kid. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | I'm confused about (47). Isn't "empirical data" based on | observation or _experiment_. Is this a typo? And non-empirical | data is defined as an observation that one cannot formally | measure, e.g. "I love/hate it." (47) | Empirical data. "Empirical" means based on observation or | experience. As a consequence, with the possible exception of | information derived from archival sources, all psychological data | are empirical (what would "non-empirical" psychological data look | like?). Some of the confusion probably stems from the erroneous | equation of "empirical" with "experimental" or "quantitative." | Data derived from informal observations, such as non-quantified | impressions collected during a psychotherapy session, are also | empirical. If writers wish to distinguish numerical data from | other sources of data, they should simply call them "quantified | data." | travisjungroth wrote: | It's erroneous to _equate_ "empirical" with "experimental" or | "quantitative". Those terms don't have a relationship like 4 = | 4.0. Your example in your second sentence is an example of | equating empirical with quantitative. | | Empirical makes more sense when you contrast empiricism with | rationalism. It's a split between things you observe and things | you think. If you're doing chemistry calculations, that's not | empirical but it is quantitative. If you're pouring stuff into | beakers and writing down what you see, it is empirical and | quantitative. | anotheraccount9 wrote: | Really well written article. Personally, I will still use these | expressions: | | Antidepressant medication Chemical imbalance Genetically | determined | ispo wrote: | I wish there was a similar list about economics, but it will take | 150 years more. | light_hue_1 wrote: | > (47) Empirical data. "Empirical" means based on observation or | experience. As a consequence, with the possible exception of | information derived from archival sources, all psychological data | are empirical (what would "non-empirical" psychological data look | like?). | | Nonsense. There are plenty of types of data that are not | empirical. For example, data from simulations is not empirical | data. | uxp100 wrote: | Can you elaborate on what type of psychological data | simulations you are thinking of? | zackmorris wrote: | Not sure if these are psych terms, but just wanted to add them to | be used instead of the ones on the left: | | * Depressed -> struggling (places focus on society instead of | individual) | | * Burned out -> exploited (places focus on employer instead of | employee) | denton-scratch wrote: | I enjoyed "Steep Learning Curve": if the curve is steep, that | means that you are learning quickly and easily. | danem wrote: | Many (most?) people understand "learning curve" as a hiking | analogy. A steep learning curve would mean a difficult climb. | This is understandable as most people aren't data literate, and | "steep" generally has negative connotations. | snapcaster wrote: | I always took it to mean that your personal learning curve must | be steep or you will fail to enjoy the activity/game | lamontcg wrote: | I always figured the labels were effort on the y-axis vs. | learning on the x-axis, not learning on the y-axis and | time/effort on the x-axis. | l0b0 wrote: | The "steep learning curve" entry is bizarre. Is it so difficult | to envision that it's a straightforward analogue to real life? | Climbing a steep mountain (that is, a steep slope or curve), if | you manage (since a difficult traverse is going to turn away a | lot of people, just like a steep learning curve), you are going | to end up with a good view (or understanding of the field). It | was never about a X=time, Y=distance mathematical curve. | cochne wrote: | Your disagreement with their assessment is exactly why they say | it should not be used. There are two equally plausible | interpretations, and as a technical term, theirs is correct, | see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve | l0b0 wrote: | IMO, since they're not suggesting anything better they are | not helping. It's like telling people "just don't do that if | it's causing problems". Well, what's the alternative? We | still have this concept we need to communicate effectively, | of something that's hard but possible to learn if you spend a | lot of energy on it, analogous to how you spend a lot of | energy climbing a steep hill. | | Also, have you ever met anyone who thought "steep learning | curve" was ambiguous? This seems like a controversy invented | by some really literal-minded people who are not | representative of the general population. | badrabbit wrote: | > Furthermore, there are ample reasons to doubt whether | "brainwashing" permanently alters beliefs | | This person needs to look at interviews of mk-ultra experiment | survivors. Brainwashing is very real and permanent. | Kranar wrote: | MKUltra would be an example in support of the claim that | brainwashing is not real. | | No one is disputing that subjecting someone to drugs will | permanently alter their beliefs, anyone who has come in contact | with an alcoholic or a heavy drug addict knows this but that's | not what brainwashing is. Brainwashing is ability to control | someone's thoughts often with the goal of inducing specific | beliefs and ideas. While there is plenty of evidence that | MKUltra damaged people psychologically and forever changed | their personality, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever | that it managed to change their personality in a controlled | manner. | mistermann wrote: | > there is absolutely no evidence | | I often wonder whether the neurological algorithm that | underlies this got into so many minds purely organically or | if it was put there somehow. | snapcaster wrote: | How can you say "there is no evidence" using your own | definition people I've met many times throughout life meet | that criteria belonging to the military, religions of all | stripes, CMU students | Kranar wrote: | Because I said there is no evidence that MKUltra | brainwashed people. | | You've met people in the military, CMU students and | religions of all stripes who were subject to MKUltra and | had their minds controlled? | blacksmith_tb wrote: | It also doesn't quite make sense, even if these techniques | aren't any more serious than other kinds of indoctrination, we | have abundant examples of indoctrination permanently altering | beliefs - religious conversions, ideological movements, etc. | Kranar wrote: | Indoctrination is not the same as brainwashing though. If | what you mean is indoctrination then use that term. | Brainwashing is the idea that it's possible for a specific | agent to forcefully gain significant control over someone's | mind. | | Indoctrination is not forced on a person by a specific agent | but rather is the result of passive exposure over long | periods of time. As a social species we are all indoctrinated | to some degree by our culture, our parents, friends, | profession etc... but that is not the same as a specific | person having significant control over our beliefs or | actions. | MikePlacid wrote: | > Indoctrination is not forced on a person by a specific | agent but rather is the result of passive exposure over | long periods of time. | | I do not think that indoctrination is being done by passive | exposure only. This 1970 book: | https://www.amazon.com/Canvassing-Peace-manual-volunteers- | pa... (and yes, this is _the_ Zimbardo of Stanford | experiment) describes the tactic that was successful in | starting the piece movement. The first step Zimbardo | recommends when going from home to home - is to ask to sign | some document that almost nobody will refuse to sign. Not | "Stop the war now", but more like "Investigate reports of | war crimes". Who will refuse to sign under such a noble | request? What? Do you support war crimes?? A lot of | signatures was collected. | | But there was no need to send these collective signatures | anywhere. Zimbardo states (as a scientific fact, lol) that | after a person signed something in support of some (anti- | war in this case) position - the person's _perception | changes_. He will become a little bit more receptive to | anti-war arguments than to pro-war ones. (Other purpose of | this first canvassing was to find people who _already_ are | passionate about your cause and sign them on as | volunteers). | | As I can see this tactic - not passive indoctrination, but | active involvement via small first steps - is used rather | widely on our planet these days. The most cynical variant | is "give some little money to our noble cause!" - those | being indoctrinated are financing the indoctrination | campaign themselves. That is, if Zimbardo is right. | stewbrew wrote: | How about "subconscious"? It's interesting to see how some | statements are based on wrong translations and misunderstanding. | runarberg wrote: | Can you elaborate, I always assumed subconscious to mean | something like blindsight, that is blind individuals that have | functioning eyes (i.e. their blindness is caused by brain | damage in the visual processing organs), are able to evade an | object being thrown at them despite never being able to | consciously see it. That is the stimuli of an approaching | object is indeed subconscious. | | However maybe that is an outdated term, and a better one | exists. It has been a minute since I read up on the literature. | stewbrew wrote: | There is a more or less fine line between unconscious and | subconscious (its slightly hysterical cousin). The term might | be somewhat outdated but it's still in use and also cognitive | scientists make respective assertions - even though they | might call it differently when talking about human | consciousness. | testfoobar wrote: | This is a hilariously passive aggressive attempt at gate keeping. | Considering that nearly every term on this list has a range of | uses: from the very precise with an attending list of up to date | peer reviewed exceptions and footnotes to the the obviously | false, manipulative, and reckless. In an attempt to reduce | incidents of the latter, they are asking that everyone move to | the former: "list of 50 commonly used terms in psychology, | psychiatry, and allied fields that should be avoided, or at most | used sparingly and with explicit caveats." | | Perhaps if this field of study did not suffer from a replication | crisis, the language in use might have more meaning. | excitom wrote: | Whelp, that's about all of them. | eimrine wrote: | Isn't Psychology another term to avoid if we are havind a | Neurophysiplogy term? | weego wrote: | Yes. | | The DSM 5 provides Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD, not | to he confused as ASD which is autism). It's more commonly | referred to as Sociopathy. Psychopathy is not an 'official' | condition | [deleted] | raxxorraxor wrote: | Looks like Psychologists came up with something as complicated as | the human mind. I found this very strange: | | Symptom: (under Oxymorons) (41) Observable symptom. This term, | which appears in nearly 700 manuscripts according to Google | Scholar, conflates signs with symptoms. Signs are observable | features of a disorder; symptoms are unobservable features of a | disorder that can only be reported by patients (Lilienfeld et | al., 2013; Kraft and Keeley, 2015). Symptoms are by definition | unobservable. | | I am surprised that English medicine seems to differentiate | observability here since I never heard it expressed in that way. | Seems to make sense to differentiate though, psychologists | probably know best why this data maybe needs a different | evaluation. | tantalor wrote: | This has nothing to do with psychology. It's standard | terminology used in medicine. | | > Symptoms cannot be seen and do not show up on medical tests. | Some examples of symptoms are headache, fatigue, nausea, and | pain. | | https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term... | adrian_b wrote: | It is a standard terminology that is recent and only in | English. | | It has nothing to do with the original meanings of the words | "symptom" and "sign" in English and other languages (where | "symptom" is any sign of a disease, while "sign" is any sign | of anything). | | The standard medical terminology in other languages is | "subjective symptoms" and "objective symptoms". | | In my opinion, whoever has chosen these artificial and | arbitrary meanings for the words "symptom" and "sign", both | words being widespread in many European languages, where they | are used with their old meanings, has made a very bad choice. | Someone who wants new words should invent them, not change | the traditional meanings of other words. | | I wonder if this "sign" and "symptom" terminology is common | for British English and American English, or it is used only | in American English. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > only in English | | > The standard medical terminology in other languages is | "subjective symptoms" and "objective symptoms". | | Brazilian here. We use the term _sinais e sintomas_ , | meaning signs and symptoms. Doctors learn these signs in | medical semiology classes and through practice in | hospitals. | denton-scratch wrote: | I don't think many ordinary British English speakers draw | the distinction. And yah, I guess they'd take "sign" to | mean any sign of anything. So in vernacular talk, all | medical signs AND symptoms get smooshed into "symptoms". | | So that's fine. Medical experts can use the technical | meanings in expert discourse, and the vernacular meanings | in vernacular discourse. | twic wrote: | At least one NHS content editor uses "symptom" to mean | objective symptoms [1]: | | > Symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19) in adults can include: | | > - a high temperature or shivering (chills) - a high | temperature means you feel hot to touch on your chest or | back (you do not need to measure your temperature) | | As do, slightly implicitly, all four of the UK chief | medical officers [2]: | | > The individual's households should also self-isolate for | 14 days as per the current guidelines and the individual | should stay at home for 7 days, or longer if they still | have symptoms other than cough or loss of sense of smell. | | [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus- | covid-19/symptoms/... | | [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the- | uk-chi... | tantalor wrote: | Kind of confused by what you mean "in other languages" and | then give examples in English. What are these other | languages and words? | | If you say the meaning of these words are different in | other languages, then aren't you translating them | incorrectly? | | > Someone who wants new words should invent them, not | change the traditional meanings of other words. | | Language changes over time. The meaning of words can | change. Definitions aren't etched into stone. | Jorengarenar wrote: | >What are these other languages and words? | | From what I see from quick search word "symptom" as | written here is also present in Czech, Danish, German, | Norwegian, Polish and Swedish. | | Many other languages has variations (e.g. French's | "symptome" or Latvian's "simptoms"). | pbhjpbhj wrote: | That definition doesn't comport with my experience of | British-English usage in UK. | | The definition you link is interesting, I'll quote it: | | >symptom >(SIMP-tum) >A physical or mental problem that a | person experiences that may indicate a disease or condition. | Symptoms cannot be seen and do not show up on medical tests. | Some examples of symptoms are headache, fatigue, nausea, and | pain. | | There seems to be an internal inconsistency in defining a | symptom as physical if it's not objectively discernible; in | what way is it physical? If you know it's a physical aspect | of a patient then isn't it objectively observable and and so | not a 'symptom' under this narrow definition? | | We're going to tie ourselves in knots here for sure. | raxxorraxor wrote: | Yes, I meant it in contrast to other languages and general | language usage. | [deleted] | denton-scratch wrote: | /me not a MD, and from UK, not America. | | I have always understood symptoms to be the patient's reported | experience; and signs to be observable manifestations of a | condition. So yes, a symptom is by definition not observable, | and therefore "oxymoron" is correct. | matheusmoreira wrote: | The author is right from a medical perspective. There is a | technical difference between observable signs and reported | symptoms. Most people conflate both terms and there's nothing | wrong with that but people in the field should understand the | difference. | jefc1111 wrote: | Anyone have any comments about the term "highly sensitive | person"? tia | skim_milk wrote: | No respectable author uses that term so it doesn't deserve a | mention. It's on the same pop-psych wavelength as "supernova | empath" or "twin flame". | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Your comment made me cry. | jefc1111 wrote: | Shit, sorry. | lofatdairy wrote: | Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed by the level of discourse this | post has generated. I'm also an outspoken skeptic of findings in | the field of psychology, but the article is quite well formed and | well argued. If anything, accepting the nitpicking from a lot of | these comments would result in psychology being _less_ rigorous | and precise. A lot of psychology's problems comes from how | readily available it seems to be to everyday experience. We're | only 100 years from Lewis Terman and H. H. Goddard thinking they | could measure intelligence by having people circle a face judged | to be "more attractive", it's a young science and improving the | rigor of how things are expressed is essential to advancement. | Not only are a lot of these terms being used incorrectly, hence | why this paper was even published, but because they carry a | colloquial and historic baggage that don't reflect academic | understandings, or even philosophical understandings of the | epistemological concept of science. Words have definitions, and | if two people don't share the same definition, then communication | breaks down, research is misunderstood, and the field is worse | off. This is for people operating within the field to consolidate | knowledge, I don't know why people insist that lay understandings | of language and a field of study need to be reflected in the | terms of art. | | To put it in terms that engineers are more likely to appreciate, | a lot of these terms would be like "man-hours". Man-hours is | obviously a useless term because it 1) implies that increasing | workers scales production linearly, 2) implies each individual | produces at the same rate, 3) inherits from a factory mode of | production that engineers typically don't believe fits their | situation, and 4) generally results in poor estimations of cost | and delivery times. Obviously if you're trying to be productive | as an engineer, your managers only using man-hours as a term | invites ambiguity and worse working conditions. Same goes for | things like the lay understanding of attention vs its specific | meaning as an implementation template within deep learning, or | even AI more broadly vs specific neural network techniques. | ttpphd wrote: | I feel the same way and I think your comment hits it right on | the head. We should always be curious about how our language | misleads us. | irrational wrote: | It's strange that they don't offer "recommendations for | preferable terms" for every term. Or, at least example sentences | with the terms to avoid removed and replaced with more | appropriate language. Clearly these terms are being used because | authors find them useful. Without guidance on how to replace | them, authors will probably keep using them. | enneff wrote: | A lot of the terms on this list describe things that simply | don't exist, so the implicit suggestion is to not make shit up. | To, y'know, research what you're writing about rather than just | repeat mistruths. | light_hue_1 wrote: | > (19) No difference between groups. ... Authors are instead | advised to write "no significant difference between groups" or | "no significant correlation between variables." | | This is terrible advice. To the public, and often even to | experts, "significant" doesn't mean "statistically significant" | it means "big". We need to abolish this use of "significant" not | promote it. Way too many papers show "significant" (statistically | significant) results that are not significant (so minor as to be | irrelevant). This is the #1 source of misleading headlines. | dredmorbius wrote: | There's been strong pushback against the term "statistical | significance", though I don't seem to find a widely-accepted | alternative. See e.g., | | "Moving to a World Beyond "p < 0.05"" Ronald L. Wasserstein, | Allen L. Schirm, & Nicole A. Lazar. Pages 1-19 | Published | online: 20 Mar 2019 | | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2019.1... | | "Statistically measurable" or "statistically determinable" come | to mind though I can't find a cite. | | The originally intended ... significance ... of the term was | that a difference was _capable of being shown using statistical | methods_. Not that its _size_ or _context_ was itself | significant in some semantic, practical, or other sense. | BrainVirus wrote: | _> Nevertheless, the attitude-change techniques used by so-called | "brainwashers" are no different than standard persuasive methods | identified by social psychologists, such as encouraging | commitment to goals, manufacturing source credibility, forging an | illusion of group consensus, and vivid testimonials_ | | Ok, let me get this straight. You openly admit that brainwashing | techniques are now routinely and knowingly used in "casual" | settings, but you want me to stop using the term, _because_ it 's | so routine and because it never was never long-term effective. | Faulty reasoning at best, manipulative bullshit at worst. | raxxorraxor wrote: | I think in most cases the argument of precision is warranted, | but this might indeed be a bit much. Especially since | psychology and clinical psychology needs accountability and the | author used the weakest meaning of brain washing, a term quite | precise for the worst deeds of the profession. | chairhairair wrote: | In my experience if someone uses the term "brainwashing" they | are not trying to have a real conversation, they are trying to | avoid any nuanced conversation actually. | ndr wrote: | > (27) The scientific method. Many science textbooks, including | those in psychology, present science as a monolithic "method." | [...] Contrary to what most scientists themselves appear to | believe, science is not a method; it is an approach to knowledge | (Stanovich, 2012). Specifically, it is an approach that strives | to better approximate the state of nature by reducing errors in | inferences. | | Mmmh is this Psychology opting out of the scientific method? | halpmeh wrote: | dmerks wrote: | Probably refers to epistemology, a branch of philosophy related | to theories of knowledge | eckza wrote: | What about the rest of this, that you didn't quote, do you take | issue with? | malfist wrote: | What about it? | typon wrote: | See absolutely nothing wrong with this quote. The "scientific | method" is almost a meaningless term because it means different | things to different branches of study - discouraging its use | for more accurate terminology makes perfect sense. | some_random wrote: | The trouble is that Psychology as a field has had serious | problems with reproducibility since it's inception. | mcBesse wrote: | The article doesn't suggest that at all, as far as I can tell. | None of what you quoted indicates that is. | bt4u wrote: | [deleted] | nilslindemann wrote: | This was an amazing read. | | Bookmarked it to have it available the next time someone talks | about 'cults' who 'brainwash' their members. | | Have a nice day, dear members of this cult :-) | marton78 wrote: | Please also make them watch this: | | https://youtu.be/lp2vGAD-BGw | kbos87 wrote: | This isn't used in medical circles anymore but I'm shocked that | it's still acceptable to label something or someone as | "hysterical", which I believe implies erratic behavior that ties | back to having a uterus. | Tenoke wrote: | Why wouldn't it be? Clearly people don't mean anything sexist | by it, given that most don't know about it, and nobody as far | as I know is offended. Who do you want to ban the word for? | [deleted] | kbos87 wrote: | To be clear I think intent matters more than anything else, | and I'm not an advocate for "banning" terms or shunning | people for unknowingly using a term like this - but the | history and what it implies is questionable to the point | where it's probably best not to use it personally | herghost wrote: | I've heard 'testerical' used as a synonym. Possibly in a | tongue-in-cheek way. | marton78 wrote: | Isn't "person with uterus" the new politically correct way of | women? /sarkasm off | babypuncher wrote: | I would wager that 99% of people using the word "hysterical" | have no clue about that history. | | I'm in my 30s and this is a little fact I just learned today. | bluescrn wrote: | Are there any really good synonyms for 'hysteria' though, to | describe a sort of crazed panic around a certain subject? | kmoser wrote: | If only we had a means of searching for such synonyms in an | online reference book. | bluescrn wrote: | I had a quick search, but nothing stood out as a | particularly great replacement, hence the question | colinwilyb wrote: | Rave, Riot, Hullabaloo | a1369209993 wrote: | To be fair, compaining about that makes about as much sense as | compaining about the racist implications of the term "good | Samaritan", although I agree that, in retrospect, it's | pleasantly surprising that social justice warriors haven't | tried to ram though a de facto ban anyway. | at_a_remove wrote: | It's on the list. Don't worry. | _manifold wrote: | If I understand correctly, Samaritans have the same ethnic | roots as Jews. The differences were more religious and | ideological than racial. So with that in mind, saying the | term "good Samaritan" is specifically racist doesn't really | hold water. Xenophobic, maybe. The lines kind of blur when | you're talking about groups that are divided by some odd | combination of ethnicity, religion, and nationality. | | Regardless, if you look at the actual context, the Parable of | the Good Samaritan is arguably meant as a message _against_ | racism and preconceived notions about people from other | ethnic groups or countries. | golemiprague wrote: | mistrial9 wrote: | there are three pillars of communication in action at once here, | it seems.. one is the accepted technical language of the trained, | credentialed specialist; second is the common language used daily | to navigate our personal lives; third might be the language used | in public discourse, in the media, and in a classroom to non- | specialists.. | | The high-effort piece of writing adds citation-based examples of | semi-specialist wording.. like someone that is a credentialed | school counselor, but is not in the health professions per-se. | Well guess what, you now have religious schools and also splinter | educational environments to deal with as your audience.. good | luck with that, Science is not going to settle cultural | commitments in all cases. nor should it, I will argue. | | Psychology has always been seen as a pseudo-science in some | corners, unlike hard sciences backed by math. This well- | intentioned and somewhat urgent writing tries to corral the | "three pillars of communication" listed above, and as usual, will | only get so far IMHO .. | photochemsyn wrote: | I wouldn't call psychology a 'pseudo-science', more that it's | at a level of development comparable to 19th century medicine, | when the concept of infectious disease being due to | transmittable microbes or viruses was not understood. | | Most 'psychological disorders' today are not diagnosed based on | specific physical-chemical tests, i.e. one can say with high | certainty that a patient has drug-resistant tuberculosis using | a PCR test. In contrast, there are no definitive tests for | everything from ADHD to schizophrenia to bipolar disorder to | depression, although more diagnoses lead to more pharma drug | sales... | JamesianP wrote: | Perhaps the pseudoscience label is used too sparingly. When | people treat something that is not science as science, that | is pseudoscience. Modern society is awash with it, as was | 19th century medicine. | | I'm not sure how much real science they have in psychology in | particular. I'm sure there's some, like I've heard they can | use fMRI to analyze the language region of the brain to | identify what kind of speech disorder you have. But certainly | a lot of publications cross the line. | | We can still be fair and say they do help a lot of people | with therapy, even if they don't really understand why. | Historically craftsmen were ahead of scientists in making | working technologies. They weren't necessarily peddling in | scams and nonsense, they were just not backed by real | science. | jrm4 wrote: | Interesting. This implies that psychology is strongly likely | to "get better," like out of it's 19th century phase? I see | no reason to believe that? | P_I_Staker wrote: | They're not trying to get better. It's a religion (cult?). | mcBesse wrote: | I doubt psychology will ever change like alchemy into | chemistry, but perhaps advancements in our understanding of | the mind will take a different form? | kensai wrote: | I am surprised there is no mention of the word "histrionic" which | is completely out-of-date and insulting to women. | FeteCommuniste wrote: | How so? "Histrionic" has no relation to "hysterical." | astrange wrote: | If two words aren't related it can still be a problem if | people think they are, and language evolution will start | treating them as if they are (backformation). | Veen wrote: | 'Histrionic' originates in the Latin 'histrionica,' which | refers to actors and acting, supposedly because actors first | came from the Greek colony of Histria on the Black Sea. I'm not | sure why any of that is insulting to women. | matheusmoreira wrote: | He probably means _hysterical_ , that which is plagued by | _hysteria_ , excessive emotion. The word originates from | _hystera_ , greek for uterus. No longer in clinical use but | certainly in popular usage despite its unfortunate history. | pipeline_peak wrote: | Surprised I didn't see gaslight or projecting mentioned | Slava_Propanei wrote: | thinkmcfly wrote: | I wonder if we could make some useful generalizations about hn | populations by looking at what kind of psych articles they push | to the top. | apienx wrote: | "Passive aggressive" is another very often misused term IMHO. | dredmorbius wrote: | That would seem to fall into the pop-psych exclusion mentioned | at the start of the article. | yamazakiwi wrote: | Is the misuse because often people use that descriptor for | someone who is aware they're expressing negative feelings | indirectly? | ironmagma wrote: | A few of these seem like they are somewhere between harmless and | inevitable... what's supposed to replace "the scientific method" | or "steep learning curve"? | denton-scratch wrote: | Shallow Learning Curve? | ironmagma wrote: | Except everyone currently understands that to mean the | opposite of what it means. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | (2) Antidepressant medication. | | "Moreover, some authors argue that these medications are | considerably less efficacious than commonly claimed, and are | beneficial for only severe, but not mild or moderate, depression, | rendering the label of "antidepressant" potentially misleading" | | Love it! | | (7) Chemical imbalance. | | Hate it! | | Of course there is such a thing as a chemical imbalance. I would | say serotonin syndrome is a good example. That is way too much | serotonin. And when I am manic, I am sure I have a chemical | imbalance (glutamate). | photochemsyn wrote: | Looking at the headline, one might think this is another tedious | guide to what (arguably) constitutes politically correct language | in modern society (case example: "use 'unhoused' in favor of | 'homeless'"), but it's actually a collection of well-researched | and documented examples of misuse of technical terms. | | For example: | | > " _Chemical imbalance_. Thanks in part to the success of | direct-to-consumer marketing campaigns by drug companies, the | notion that major depression and allied disorders are caused by a | 'chemical imbalance' of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and | norepinephrine, has become a virtual truism in the eyes of the | public... There is no known 'optimal' level of neurotransmitters | in the brain, so it is unclear what would constitute an | 'imbalance.' Nor is there evidence for an optimal ratio among | different neurotransmitter levels." | | They also discourage the use of the term 'brainwashing' | (introduced in the 1950s during the Korean War by the US | government), although I'd argue that 'operant conditioning' is an | acceptable and well-researched concept, particularly when it is | applied steadily from a young age through to adulthood: | | https://www.thoughtco.com/operant-conditioning-definition-ex... | lvass wrote: | Agreed. I despise political correctness yet appreciate this | list, using precise language is always a good idea. I clicked | in ready to see "shell shock" being renamed for the third time | in less than a century, but that type of shenanigan is not what | this article is about. | runarberg wrote: | > I clicked in ready to see "shell shock" being renamed for | the third time in less than a century | | It's interesting you'd say that because I always understood | the term _Shell Shock_ to have been abandoned in favor of a | more accurate and descriptive term. So I think if it was | still in use by psychologists today (for some reason), I | would have expected to see that on this list, and see the | authors argue for the far more accurate term _Post Traumatic | Stress Disorder_. | | As a case in point, this list does include _Multiple | personality disorder_ and argues we should instead use the | more accurate term _dissociative identity disorder_. | csours wrote: | "Shell Shock" of course being the feeling when you discover | that you are not using bash 4+ | | === End joke section === | | Shell shock has a genuinely complex and interesting history. | It has described different conditions, had different | connotations and value judgements, and had different supposed | causes over time. | | As I understand it, shell shock has at least two very real | components: Traumatic brain injury and Post traumatic stress | disorder - they are often found together, and they act | together to make things much worse than either by themselves. | Mainstream understanding of the harm of repeated mild | traumatic brain injury is very recent, relatively speaking. | LordDragonfang wrote: | Some of these are practically tautological in their reasoning | for why the terms are "misused", though. | | For example, they criticize calling drugs "antidepressants" | solely because it's not their "primary effect". But the term is | used to describe drugs which _do_ treat "mood disorders" | (depression), and _do_ have effects in many cases. I don 't see | how that's any different from how the term "anxiolytic" is | used, even though that's one of the examples they contrasted it | with. | | Likewise, the section on "hypnotic trance" talks about how | hypnosis doesn't induce a sufficiently different brain state to | warrant the term, but the term was _coined_ to describe the | state the hypnosis induces, which _is_ subjectively distinct | from normal waking consciousness. And from what I 've heard | from those who've experienced it, it's characterized by a | reduced awareness of the self, which is the defining feature of | a trance, if the term can even be said to have any definition | outside its uses to describe hypnosis. | csours wrote: | How would I find the modern, generally accepted understanding | of hypnosis? | bubblesort wrote: | I agree. I'm going to refer back to this article when debunking | pseudo-scientific BS from now on. | [deleted] | lupire wrote: | I don't see the difference. Both "Politically Correct" and | "Psychiatrically Correct" are addressing the same concern of | misconceptions due to inaccurate or misleading language. | | You can be houseless but not homeless, and still need help with | your housing. | MichaelCollins wrote: | Huh? If you live in a condo, you have no house but you are | not homeless. A house is only one kind of shelter that can be | a home, of many. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | It could also refer to the difference between living in | someone's spare room, couch surfing, or living in a camper | van vs having a home (rented or bought). | MichaelCollins wrote: | > living in someone's spare room | | Children living with their parents don't own houses, but | they aren't homeless either. Or adults for that matter. | For a few years in college I lived in a spare room in my | grandparent's house. I had no house of my own, but I | certainly felt welcome and wasn't homeless by any means. | rad88 wrote: | There is no meaning of "housed" that implies "owns a | house". | raxxorraxor wrote: | No, political correct is most often the opposite. It tries to | obfuscate. Certainly not gain precision. | LAC-Tech wrote: | You're looking at it too literally. | | Enforcing others to change their language is mostly about | power. Any feel good explanations of why it needs to change | is justification for executing that power. | feet wrote: | It sounds like there are some misconceptions about "political | correctness" | AnonCoward42 wrote: | Unhoused vs homeless looks like a good example of a euphemism | treatmill (in progress). Their state is not being altered by | the "finer" wording instead it sounds pretentious and | condescending. | | There are a lot of these political correct terms that are | being used more cynically by now, however I'd prefer to not | open that can of worms. | MichaelCollins wrote: | Good example of this from the article: _" alcohol use | disorder (formerly called alcoholism)"_ | mattficke wrote: | That's just a straightforward description of changes in | the DSM. "Alcoholism" was split into "alcohol abuse" and | "alcohol dependence" back in the 80's, but in the | intervening years the consensus view settled on treating | these as separate symptoms of a single disorder. This is | reflected in the DSM-5, which uses the term "alcohol use | disorder". The purpose of the linked article is to ensure | practitioners are using consistent terms when | communicating in a professional context. | | Further context: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2701140/ | altruios wrote: | pedantically, I find alcohol use disorder more accurate | to my internal definition of condition and disease. | | What we call things matter: as even slight changes in | wording affect how people perceive things - so great care | should be use when deciding what vernacular we should | adopt generally. | [deleted] | hirvi74 wrote: | In my mind, an alcoholic is someone that has a dependency | on alcohol, but not all people with AUD have a dependency | on alcohol. For example, I think binge-drinking | consistently (college students on weekends, for example) | can be considered to have a mild AUD, but that person is | not necessarily an "alcoholic" -- at least not what the | average person considers to be an an alcoholic. | | (If anyone knows more, feel free to correct me) | ltbarcly3 wrote: | This is not the case. Often the "politically correct" version | is not actually more correct, but is replacing some common | phrase that is declared obnoxious by some very small | unrepresentative minority of people who coincidentally make | their living as activists. | | Yes you can be houseless but not homeless, but you can also | be homeless and not houseless. It's an utterly stupid | distinction predicated on an intentionally incorrect, close, | and literal minded reading of the term, done for political | reasons. | cnity wrote: | You're downvoted by not far off to be honest. See also: the | Euphemism Treadmill[0] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Lifespan | mc32 wrote: | Some iconic precursors to PC speech was the redefinition of | role titles. Janitor which everyone was familiar with would | be replaced with "sanitation engineer" or something similar | which conveyed less what the person did do. | Gordonjcp wrote: | Right, but that's a fictional example. No-one has | actually unironically called a janitor a "sanitation | engineer". | mc32 wrote: | Not so fast: | | Brand Evangelist (Marketing) | | Outplacement consultant (someone who comes in to fire | people) | | Flueologist (Chimneysweep) | | Loss prevention officer (Security guard) | | Waste removal engineer (trashman/trashwoman) | | https://www.businessinsider.com/recruiting-firm-shares- | the-5... | Lio wrote: | I think it's worse than that because it actually devalues | the role of engineer, and the role of janitor by | presenting it as something it's not. | | A sanitation engineer sounds like someone that knows how | to safely build sewers or run a sewage processing plant. | i.e. something you'd have a formal education and be | accredited for. | | With respect for honest hardworking janitors everywhere, | that's not the same thing as minor plumbing or ensuring | that places are properly cleaned. Neither task is | engineering. | | - | | _"I understand that you're a neurosurgeon."_ | | _(Bert grins.) "...No; I'm a barber. But a lot of people | make that mistake."_ | Cthulhu_ wrote: | It kinda sounds like classism or wage related; "janitor" | or "cleaner" sounds common, a "sanitation engineer" or | "chief housekeeping manager" sounds like they would earn | more. | mc32 wrote: | Would I prefer to be a Janitor earning $20/hr or would I | prefer being a sanitation engineer earning $15/hr. Sounds | like I'm trading title for less money. There is probably | some relationship with the now passe "rock star" "ninja". | Karawebnetwork wrote: | "first, do no harm" includes psychological safety. | | To use a bold example, there's a difference between telling | your client they are "overweight" and telling them they are | a "fat ass". | raxxorraxor wrote: | Psychological safety is utterly subjective. There cannot | be a general ruleset. Although of course most doctors | will not call you a fat ass. Maybe if he knows you more | closely... | kergonath wrote: | I think I agree with the sentiment, but being overweight | is a characteristic of someone's body. A fat arse is a | part of a body. You can be overweight without a fat arse | and vice versa, those are not identical. | | I would naively think that "fat arse" is vulgar or | insulting enough (or at the very least way too informal) | not to use it with someone you're not familiar with. This | has nothing to do with political correctness. | | You can ruin some people's day by calling them ginger. I | would expect a psychologist to be sensitive to this sort | of things (do no harm, indeed), but that's not a good | reason to make everyone stop using that word. | arise wrote: | Sometimes the brutal truth is the best anecdote. Does it | hurt? Yes, but so do needles and countless other medical | procedures. Pain != harm. | waprin wrote: | I had the same reaction. | | The phrase "chemical imbalance" can't die soon enough. I've met | some very smart people who were misled into thinking there's | much more scientific evidence than exists that there's some | innate brain chemistry that's linked to mental illness. In | general, people overestimate how much of psychiatry is first- | principles instead of black box statistical conjecture. The | first huge hint that there's no simplistic chemical imbalance | explanation is they don't measure any brain chemicals when they | do psychiatric diagnosis. | | Furthermore, when people discuss "chemical imbalance" they're | almost always talking about something innate and unchanging | e.g. I'm depressed because of a chemical imbalance, not my | lifestyle. When there's actually a ton of evidence that to the | extent there's chemistry in your brain, your lifestyle and | things like your food diet and information diet play a massive | role. | | I will recommend this guy in way too many comments here but if | you haven't heard of Andrew Huberman, please listen to his | podcast, it's been life-changing. He gives tons of lifestyle | tips and backs up all his arguments with his decades of | experience in neuroscience. | hirvi74 wrote: | > they don't measure any brain chemicals when they do | psychiatric diagnosis | | They do not measure _anything_ in my experience. | | They just take an educated guess at what will fix your issues | based on heuristics, and then just wait to see if you | love/hate whatever they gave you. If what they give you did | not work, then on to the next option until something works or | all options are exhausted (which they usually just send you | off to a different professional). | | As I grow older, I am more convinced that psychiatry is more | of an art than a science. | | Tangential: I used to listen to Huberman, but over time I | started to dislike his podcast more and more. I think he is a | phenominal researcher, and I think his intentions with his | podcast are good, but it seems like he just reads off various | cherry-picked studies without actually linking them (that I | could find) and without any mention of important details in | the studies e.g. sample sizes, methodology flaws, | implicit/explicit biases, etc.. | | He claimed 14% of pregnant mothers use cannabis in the US, | but from what I have read of others' ventures into this | claim, no one can find any information to support this claim. | | I also remember his episode on ADHD, and how effective fish | oil can be for treating some of the symptoms in ADHD. | However, in my own reading of various research articles, I | have found that there is quite a lot conflicting information | pertaining to the purported benefits of fish oil (in regards | to ADHD). But of course, he did not mention anything about | the research that did not fit the supplement narrative... But | don't forget to use the code "HubermanLabs" for a discount on | your purchase of Athletic Greens though. | strogonoff wrote: | It is good to see awareness being raised of accidental | philosophical positions, sometimes unwittingly assumed through | word choice. | | For example, I was starting to doubt whether anyone realizes that | they make a leap whenever they imply physiology/biology is the | cause of what happens in our consciousness (or indeed causes | consciousness to happen), but entry 29 reassured me not all hope | is lost (emphasis mine): | | > Nevertheless, conceptualizing biological functioning as | inherently more "fundamental" than (that is, causally prior to) | psychological functioning, such as cognitive and emotional | functioning, is misleading (Miller, 1996). The relation between | biological variables and other variables is virtually always | bidirectional. For example, although the magnitude of the P300 | event-related potential tends to be diminished among individuals | with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) compared with other | individuals (Costa et al., 2000), this finding does not | necessarily mean that the P300 deficit precedes, let alone plays | a causal role in, ASPD. _It is at least equally plausible_ that | the personality dispositions associated with ASPD, such as | inattention, low motivation, and poor impulse control, contribute | to smaller P300 magnitudes (Lilienfeld, 2014). | | I believe the equal likelihood of such reverse causality and its | implications are severely underexplored in modern medicine. | | Similarly appreciated the warning against accidentally assuming | mind-body dualism (entry 40) and a fundamental point about | natural sciences--that there is never definitive proof, only | limited to various degrees models (entry 45). | matheusmoreira wrote: | This uncertainty stems from the lack of rigorous proof. | Medicine these days is all about statistics and correlation. | It's "we gave drug A to people with B and we observed effects C | occurring D% of the time". In way too many cases there is no | exact model or understanding of how things actually work, just | inferences from observed effects. | wwtrv wrote: | That might still be preferable to coming up with theories | explaining mechanisms we don't fully understand and then | looking for data which might prove it. That might become | especially problematic when scientists stake their entire | careers on it. We might end up with situations similar the | amyloid hypothesis which likely tuned out to be a dead end a | huge waste time & resources. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > coming up with theories explaining mechanisms we don't | fully understand and then looking for data which might | prove it | | Also known as the scientific method. | lisper wrote: | Another term to avoid IMHO: "jingle jangle fallacy". It's catchy, | but both the word "jingle" and the word "jangle" have established | meanings in English neither of which has anything to do with what | is being referred to here. To say nothing of the fact that the | "jingle jangle fallacy" is not a fallacy, it's just bad choice of | terminology. | | Much better words than "jingle jangle fallacy" are "ambiguous" | (for one word that has multiple meanings) and "redundant" (for | multiple words that have the same meaning) terminology. | | (I find it supremely ironic that this needs to be pointed out in | an article whose central thesis is that wise choice of | terminology is important.) | scubbo wrote: | This is the first time I've heard of the word "jangle" existing | independently of the onomatopoeiac phrase "jingle jangle"! That | said, I definitely agree that this is an ironically-poor choice | of name due the lack of relation between the name and the | referent. | runarberg wrote: | The authors seem to use the term them selfs in this very | article, they apparently don't see it as a problem. | | > Psychology has long struggled with problems of terminology | (Stanovich, 2012). For example, numerous scholars have warned | of the jingle and jangle fallacies, the former being the error | of referring to different constructs by the same name and the | latter the error of referring to the same construct by | different names (Kelley, 1927; Block, 1995; Markon, 2009). | yafbum wrote: | Comes across as unnecessary judgemental. Opportunity here: figure | out how to be helpful rather than sanctimonious. Talk about what | to use instead, rather than just about what to avoid. | NickM wrote: | Glad to see "chemical imbalance" make the list. It is very common | to see people use terms like "dopamine hit", "endorphin rush", | "low serotonin", etc. in ways that don't make scientific sense. | | I assume people do it to sound knowledgeable or to make it sound | like their ideas are backed by science, but neurotransmitters are | vastly more complicated and subtle in their effects than is | implied by these kinds of usages, and emotions and behaviors are | tremendously more complex than the "my neurotransmitters made me | do it/feel it" narrative would suggest. | quickthrower2 wrote: | At the same time we have a need to make sense of things. And | having a rough relatable framework can be part of the therapy. | I can also see why it might be dangerous "e.g. dopamine hit | good, what foods/drugs will give me that" | avgcorrection wrote: | What becomes clearer by labeling things with | neurotransmitters? Did you just not _know_ your own habitual | motivations? In that case some technical jargon won't make | you wiser or smarter. | matheusmoreira wrote: | I don't see anything wrong with the term "dopamine hit". It's | the main neurotransmitter involved in the brain's reward | system. Rewarding stimulus is exactly what is meant by popular | use of the term. | | I really don't understand attempts to problematize the use of | this term. Sure, there are other neurotransmitters involved and | dopamine is also present in other systems and even in the rest | of the body. Nobody denies that. | enduser wrote: | Despite what we have been taught--and what is still commonly | stated--dopamine is what _motivates_ behavior (motivational | salience), not what makes us feel good after the behavior. | Plenty of citations on Wikipedia if you want to dig. | runarberg wrote: | > The goal of this article is to promote clear thinking and | clear writing among students and teachers of psychological | science by curbing terminological misinformation and | confusion. | | > We also do not address problematic terms that are | restricted primarily to popular ("pop") psychology, such as | "codependency," "dysfunctional," "toxic," "inner child," and | "boundaries," as our principal focus is on questionable | terminology in the academic literature. Nevertheless, we | touch on a handful of pop psychology terms (e.g., closure, | splitting) that have migrated into at least some academic | domains. | | I'm not aware that "dopamine hit" has migrated into some | academic domains as it is kind of a slang among laypeople | with the meaning of indulging in an activity they like. So I | think "dopamine hit" specifically is out of scope for this | article. "Chemical imbalance" on the other hand is a | problematic term that has been used historically to promote | inaccurate--and thoroughly disproved--models of mental | illness. I guess the term is--somewhat worryingly--still | being used among academics in the literature, and that's why | it was granted a place on this list. | colechristensen wrote: | The problem is the dumbing down of complex mechanisms into | sound bites. Both dopamine and rewards systems are a lot more | complicated than they're presented and not very well | understood. But you can buy self-help/popsci books that give | you very incorrect simplistic pictures of how these things | work. | | Maybe the term "dopamine hit" is fine when it's just that, | but people base their whole understanding of their brain | based on dopamine does this, seratonin does that, etc. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Yes, I agree that it's dumbed down but not everything has | to be a scientifically accurate discussion. I think it's a | useful term to easily communicate complex concepts. | Dopamine hit for any pleasurable addicting stimulus. | Dopamine dripfeed for social media's endless stream of | tailored content. The word dopamine is in there to | associate the idea with addictive drugs and the way they | take over the brain's reward center. | [deleted] | avgcorrection wrote: | Using inappropriately technical jargon (especially "dopamine") | is one of my pet peeves (which I just get more of the older I | get). | | Why, say, describe fond feelings or affection as "oxytocin"? Do | you _know_ anything about this neurotransmitter? Or are you | just using it as a fancy synonym for love and affection? Is the | vernacular English language--but I guess pop-neurotransmitters | are vernacular now--too impoverished to talk about love and | affection? | | Same thing goes for "dopamine". Did reading a factually wrong | comment make you angry, or did you get a "dopamine hit" that | motivated you to reply to it? Were you validated by the | upvotes, or did you get a "dopamine hit"? Why describe | pleasure, anger, comfort, etc. etc. as just "dopamine"? | | It seems to me that fetishizing things by pinning pleasure on | something ostensibly tangible like _dopamine_ is just too | irresistible. Now we can pretend that we actually know | ourselves in the ancient Greek self by talking about our | indulgent and sinful behavior as just "dopamine". | | For similar reasons I don't like when people in meditation | circles obsess over "the ego". Every little mind-wandering and | slip-up becomes the fault of the fetish that is "the ego". | | Edit: Of course this is how laypeople relate to | neurotransmitters while the submission is about psychologists. | So this is a side-topic. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-16 23:00 UTC)