271–280 of 354 posts
For nstance, IPV usually doesn’t involve “violence” or at least what normal people consider violence (ie Punchin, kicking, slapping, etc…). IPV is more often financial or mental abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission (an independent government agency) [0]: > Racism takes many forms and can happen in many places. It inc…
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 --…
This means that not only can "your neurodivergent status" change (say, a non-autistic person in a group of autistic people would be neurodivergent), but it is a spectrum. You might be divergent from the typical in certain domains (say, you are very sensitive to certain sounds), while being typical in others (say, your way of using body language matches the way most people use it around you).
Bringing up neurodivergence makes only sense when you do notice that there is something different about how you perceive the world or act, vs what everybody else seems to be doing.
Specific conditions lead to neurodivergence, say ADHD or neurological disorders or mood disorders, while others might be attributed to upbringing or nationality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ar…
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 se…
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)
>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 "…
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…
For example, dopamine-related drugs relatively consistently lower ADHD symptoms.
A given example that serotonin-reducing drugs can alleviate depression hardly makes the point.
One common (and false) belief is that "depression is caused by low serotonin". It is certainly way more complicated than that; otherwise, SSRIs would be as effective for depression as dopamine-increasing drugs work for ADHD.
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): > Neverth…
Anyone have any comments about the term "highly sensitive person"? tia
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".
While indeed HSP is not a psychological term, it makes sense for self-description.
Unless you are a kind of person that cringes at people saying they are "coffee lovers" or "morning persons" with "it is not a proper psychological term!". :)
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 e…
If one reads the article, one would find the absolute majority of the arguments are plain empty claims with little supporting evidence. Citing a single paper, usually over a decade old, is simply proving the opposite; as what they're saying is "out of the thousands of researches done on X (especially medicine), we only found one paper supporting our modern and liberal claim".
And your example of manhours is utterly detached from reality. Only daft personnel think your points are axioms. Of course manhours are a rough estimate! Of course 9 women don't make a baby in a month. Unless you became an engineer last night, I can only assume you are a liberal warrior regurgitating favorable pieces.
What's next, laws on how to think?