241–250 of 354 posts
* Depressed -> struggling (places focus on society instead of individual)
* Burned out -> exploited (places focus on employer instead of employee)
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 ...."
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 base…
I am surprised there is no mention of the word "histrionic" which is completely out-of-date and insulting to women.
How so? "Histrionic" has no relation to "hysterical."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-manifest…
Quoted post unavailable.
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.
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 ma…
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
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The broader history of psychiatry has so many dark spots one might confuse it for a dalmatian.
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.