3 ms·

Using inappropriately technical jargon (especially “dopamine”) is one of my pet peeves (which I just get more of the older I get). Why, say, describe fond feel

Using inappropriately technical jargon (especially “dopamine”) is one of my pet peeves (which I just get more of the older I get). Why, say, describe fond feelings or affection as “oxytocin”? Do you know anything about this neurotransmitter? Or are you just using it as a fancy synonym for love and affection? Is the vernacular English language—but I guess pop-neurotransmitters are vernacular now—too impoverished to talk about love and affection? Same thing goes for “dopamine”. Did reading a factually wrong comment make you angry, or did you get a “dopamine hit” that motivated you to reply to it? Were you validated by the upvotes, or did you get a “dopamine hit”? Why describe pleasure, anger, comfort, etc. etc. as just “dopamine”? It seems to me that fetishizing things by pinning pleasure on something ostensibly tangible like dopamine is just too irresistible. Now we can pretend that we actually know ourselves in the ancient Greek self by talking about our indulgent and sinful behavior as just “dopamine”. For similar reasons I don’t like when people in meditation circles obsess over “the ego”. Every little mind-wandering and slip-up becomes the fault of the fetish that is “the ego”. Edit: Of course this is how laypeople relate to neurotransmitters while the submission is about psychologists. So this is a side-topic.

jakear 4y ago
> Every little mind-wandering and slip-up becomes the fault of the fetish that is “the ego”. Ironically, you’ve here used “fetish” in a way that the article explicitly admonishes, opting instead for the vernacular definition. And I think that’s okay! Language is about communication, if when you say fetish I know what you mean, and when other people say dopamine I know what they mean, who cares what the diction police say?
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  Not really. First of all, see my edit, which was there many hours before your reply: This is a side-topic about laypeople misappropriating technical terms, while the submission is about professional (social) psychologists. I am not a psychologist, did not attempt to discuss psychology, hence this attempted gotcha is invalid. Second of all, my attempt (butchered or not) at using this word has no relation to the field of psychology at all since it is inspired by Marx’s use, who probably got it from Hegel (predates professional psychology, does it not?). The vernacular meaning (apparently, according to MW) means to be very fond of something. But what I mean in this context has got nothing to do with being in love with some inanimate object (in a non-sexual way); it means to use some object (although in this case an abstract one) as something to fixate on in lieu of appreciating and understanding wholly non-tangible things that may only be fully understood as relations. In this case, instead of trying to comprehend the mind as more of a web of associations, of cause and effect, you/they invent the fetish of the very animated “ego” which is trying to sabotage your every effort to achieve mindfulness, perform better in your corporate job, or what have you.

jakear 4y ago

> Every little mind-wandering and slip-up becomes the fault of the fetish that is “the ego”. Ironically, you’ve here used “fetish” in a way that the article explicitly admonishes, opting instead for the vernacular definition. And I think that’s okay! Language is about communication, if when you say fetish I know what you mean, and when other people say dopamine I know what they mean, who cares what the diction police say?

avgcorrection 4y ago
Not really. First of all, see my edit, which was there many hours before your reply: This is a side-topic about laypeople misappropriating technical terms, while the submission is about professional (social) psychologists. I am not a psychologist, did not attempt to discuss psychology, hence this attempted gotcha is invalid. Second of all, my attempt (butchered or not) at using this word has no relation to the field of psychology at all since it is inspired by Marx’s use, who probably got it from Hegel (predates professional psychology, does it not?). The vernacular meaning (apparently, according to MW) means to be very fond of something. But what I mean in this context has got nothing to do with being in love with some inanimate object (in a non-sexual way); it means to use some object (although in this case an abstract one) as something to fixate on in lieu of appreciating and understanding wholly non-tangible things that may only be fully understood as relations. In this case, instead of trying to comprehend the mind as more of a web of associations, of cause and effect, you/they invent the fetish of the very animated “ego” which is trying to sabotage your every effort to achieve mindfulness, perform better in your corporate job, or what have you.