You can be houseless but not homeless, and still need help with your housing.
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.
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.”
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...
To use a bold example, there's a difference between telling your client they are "overweight" and telling them they are a "fat ass".
I would naïvely 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.
A huge percentage of Doctor's are abusive scumbags. Everything you hear about medical ethics, they do the opposite.
They are bigoted, and emotionally abusive, gaslighting monsters, who stubbornly refuse to self reflect.
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.
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.
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)
A disease particular is from a foreign agent: bactierial/fungal/viral/prionic/parasitic.
a condition or disorder is an integral structure on awry, or rewritten (by chemicals or by viewing data) to go awry: the key distinction between this and disease being that there is no other 'lifeform' (yes - include viruses for simplicity's sake).
so alcohol use disorder vs alcoholism reflects a more accurate state of reality. (there is no bacteria/fungus/prion/parasite/virus that is the CAUSE of alcoholism - a chemical rewrote your brain which has been damaged to potentially require alcohol to survive).
the push back I've encountered had nothing to do with being 'correct'/'sensible' and had everything to do with protecting the feelings of people suffering from AUD - which is not a worthwhile goal to coddle people with fluffy medical terms in the aims of removing responsibility from one's self...
... sorry for the rant :)
Further context: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2701140/
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.
There are some that just mean well, but even then, the method is questionable.
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.
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.
There's a bit of an educated guessing component to it, but mental health professionals are starting to use genetic testing to take some of the guess work out.
Psychiatrists go through the same four years of medical school that other doctors do. This gives them a broad enough background to help diagnose other diseases that have psychological symptoms.
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.
=== 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.
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.
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...