211–220 of 354 posts
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…
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.
=== 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good example of this from the article: "alcohol use disorder (formerly called alcoholism)"
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.
(If anyone knows more, feel free to correct me)
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 --…
> 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",…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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.
I am surprised there is no mention of the word "histrionic" which is completely out-of-date and insulting to women.
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, an…
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.