4 ms·

"People in distress" is even more useless. "in distress" could mean anything from having fallen down the stairs, to running out of gas on the highway. I don't

"People in distress" is even more useless. "in distress" could mean anything from having fallen down the stairs, to running out of gas on the highway. I don't mind changing language, as long as we're become more precise, not less. If "chemical imbalance" is bad, suggest something better. I think a bigger problem is that people are fixated on word definitions and offending others instead of solving problems.

horsawlarway 6y ago
>I think a bigger problem is that people are fixated on word definitions and offending others instead of solving problems. I agree, and this is pretty much unavoidable when the current clinical term is vague enough to be used as a generic insult. The general pattern I see 1. A vague term is used to describe symptoms of an issue we have a poor understanding of. 2. That term becomes associated with the symptoms, but is vague enough to be used as a generic insult (ex: playground school children yelling it at each other) 3. That term develops a stigma as an insult, and becomes more and more controversial 4. That term is replaced with a new term, rinse and repeat. We've seen this before ex: Moron, Imbecile, and Retard all once had vague clinical meanings. Then we went to mentally challenged, special needs, etc. Now even those are fairly loaded terms. In all of these cases, the word/phrase describes something that people would rather not have or be, but it does it without clarity. It will develop a stigma. I find the folks who constantly advocate for changing these names well-intentioned, but basically a waste of time.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  I would say this cycle happens regardless of how vague the term is. Terms like Black, Dwarf, Gay, etc... were all, at some point, considered insults despite being specific. (note: I'm not saying these are illnesses - just that the same phenomena exists - there are probably much better examples of what I'm trying to say).
pravus 6y ago
How is "distress" not the correct term? It is defined as extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain which can be caused by any of the factors you described as well as many more you are not even aware of. It is an emotional state that is perceived on the part of the person suffering rather than observers outside of them regardless of the actual physical realities involved. The term "chemical imbalance" can describe anything from acid reflux to genetic neurological pathologies or even snake bites and can certainly put people "in distress". The problem is people aren't interested in using correct definitions for anything anymore.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > The problem is people aren't interested in using correct definitions for anything anymore. Really? That's the problem? Not the mental disorder itself? These semantic debates are less than worthless.
derangedHorse 6y ago
Problems can only be addressed once precisely defined.

horsawlarway 6y ago

>I think a bigger problem is that people are fixated on word definitions and offending others instead of solving problems. I agree, and this is pretty much unavoidable when the current clinical term is vague enough to be used as a generic insult. The general pattern I see 1. A vague term is used to describe symptoms of an issue we have a poor understanding of. 2. That term becomes associated with the symptoms, but is vague enough to be used as a generic insult (ex: playground school children yelling it at each other) 3. That term develops a stigma as an insult, and becomes more and more controversial 4. That term is replaced with a new term, rinse and repeat. We've seen this before ex: Moron, Imbecile, and Retard all once had vague clinical meanings. Then we went to mentally challenged, special needs, etc. Now even those are fairly loaded terms. In all of these cases, the word/phrase describes something that people would rather not have or be, but it does it without clarity. It will develop a stigma. I find the folks who constantly advocate for changing these names well-intentioned, but basically a waste of time.

koheripbal 6y ago
I would say this cycle happens regardless of how vague the term is. Terms like Black, Dwarf, Gay, etc... were all, at some point, considered insults despite being specific. (note: I'm not saying these are illnesses - just that the same phenomena exists - there are probably much better examples of what I'm trying to say).

pravus 6y ago

How is "distress" not the correct term? It is defined as extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain which can be caused by any of the factors you described as well as many more you are not even aware of. It is an emotional state that is perceived on the part of the person suffering rather than observers outside of them regardless of the actual physical realities involved. The term "chemical imbalance" can describe anything from acid reflux to genetic neurological pathologies or even snake bites and can certainly put people "in distress". The problem is people aren't interested in using correct definitions for anything anymore.

koheripbal 6y ago
> The problem is people aren't interested in using correct definitions for anything anymore. Really? That's the problem? Not the mental disorder itself? These semantic debates are less than worthless.

derangedHorse 6y ago

Problems can only be addressed once precisely defined.