[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)