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.<p>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.
It is good to see awareness being raised of accidental philosophical positions, sometimes unwittingly assumed through word choice.<p>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):<p>> 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. <i>It is at least equally plausible</i> that the personality dispositions associated with ASPD, such as inattention, low motivation, and poor impulse control, contribute to smaller P300 magnitudes (Lilienfeld, 2014).<p>I believe the equal likelihood of such reverse causality and its implications are severely underexplored in modern medicine.<p>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).
I think the aritcle is pretty good (I have a strong disiagreement with one of the 50 terms, but otherwise I think they did a good job).<p>I'm relatively new here at HN, but as a psychologist (who also dabbles in hacking) some of the reactions do support, sadly, the stereoytype that computer/engineer-types suffer anoagnosia (the lack of knowledge of what you do not know).<p>Some engineers do not understand that the world of human behavior is far more complex than the world of atoms, molecules, components, chips, software, etc.<p>Behavioral and social scientists are, you may be surprised to learn, aware of this fact, and actually lead in scientific investigation of the difficulty, specifically: dealing with constructs, and figure out how to define and measure them.<p>"Soft sciences" actually are much harder than "hard sciences" in many ways.
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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>(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.)
Looks like Psychologists came up with something as complicated as the human mind. I found this very strange:<p>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.<p>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.
I'm confused about (47). Isn't "empirical data" based on observation or <i>experiment</i>. Is this a typo? And non-empirical data is defined as an observation that one cannot formally measure, e.g. "I love/hate it."<p><pre><code> (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.”</code></pre>
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.
The fine article begins with this rather humble aim that;<p>> The goal of this article is to promote clear thinking and clear
writing among students and teachers of psychological science<p>How many published papers, or even undergraduate essays contain such
simplifications and misunderstandings?<p>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.
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.
> Furthermore, there are ample reasons to doubt whether “brainwashing” permanently alters beliefs<p>This person needs to look at interviews of mk-ultra experiment survivors. Brainwashing is very real and permanent.
> (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.<p>Mmmh is this Psychology opting out of the scientific method?
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..<p>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.<p>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 ..
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.
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.
(2) Antidepressant medication.<p>"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"<p>Love it!<p>(7) Chemical imbalance.<p>Hate it!<p>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).
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).<p>But OCD is a diagnosis, abusing it do describe a personality trait doesn't serve the many many people impacted by the disorder.<p>-- From someone with an affected loved one.
If anything, I find this to be a, perhaps unintentional, damning indictment of psychology and psychiatry in general.<p>If your discipline cannot clearly define things in a reasonably concrete and provable way, such that it is readily apparent to <i>the patients</i> 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.<p>I'm reminded of e.g. the term "neurodivergent." It's a good thing to look at, but how do you <i>falsify</i> 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>>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</i><p>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, <i>because</i> it's so routine and because it never was never long-term effective. Faulty reasoning at best, manipulative bullshit at worst.
Not sure if these are psych terms, but just wanted to add them to be used instead of the ones on the left:<p>* Depressed -> struggling (places focus on society instead of individual)<p>* Burned out -> exploited (places focus on employer instead of employee)
> (19) No difference between groups. ... Authors are instead advised to write “no significant difference between groups” or “no significant correlation between variables.”<p>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.
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.
This was an amazing read.<p>Bookmarked it to have it available the next time someone talks about 'cults' who 'brainwash' their members.<p>Have a nice day, dear members of this cult :-)
> (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?).<p>Nonsense. There are plenty of types of data that are not empirical. For example, data from simulations is not empirical data.
Can’t believe they didn’t include “intimate partner violence”. OK, I can believe it but it’s the dumbest, least understood term I’ve ever come across.<p>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.
It seems pointless, difficult and dangerous all at the same time to try to police our speech and writing.<p>Some things have benign usage that is not harming anyone or any group of people and convey the intended meaning better than alternative words.
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 ...."
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"?
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."<p>Perhaps if this field of study did not suffer from a replication crisis, the language in use might have more meaning.
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.
Not exactly related, a friend recently told me that calling someone a "spaz" who acts absurdly or with an excess of enthusiasm, is no longer (/ was never ?) appropriate. My boss and other boomer (ok technically gen-xer) coworkers use this term liberally, as does my boomer mother and myself and others of my cohort.
I do not want to dwell on correctness of this term or of prescribing / proscribing language, only to share that this is the sort of the thing I had thought the article would be about.
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.<p>For example:<p>> "<i>Chemical imbalance</i>. 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."<p>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:<p><a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/operant-conditioning-definition-examples-4491210" rel="nofollow">https://www.thoughtco.com/operant-conditioning-definition-ex...</a>
> <i>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</i><p>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.)
> (3) Autism epidemic.<p>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.<p>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?
> (3) Autism epidemic.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.