5 ms·

"Are turning" implies some sort of novelty. But it is the same as it ever was. We've had the xuè-qì, humors, hysteria, the zodiac signs, witch hunts, the "sen

"Are turning" implies some sort of novelty. But it is the same as it ever was. We've had the xuè-qì, humors, hysteria, the zodiac signs, witch hunts, the "sensitive" type, type A, temperaments, IQ tests, Freud, Rorschach, Jung, Myers-Briggs ... People will always try to "fix" themselves and others to a particular set of traits and then predict and analyze their future behavior through that "fixed" lens. We're barely a century removed from phrenology being an accepted criminal forensic tool. We have always been susceptible to the simplicity of psychiatric labels.

samatman 2y ago
> We're barely a century removed from phrenology being an accepted criminal forensic tool. This, specifically, is a bad argument. Medicine is barely a century removed from using mercury salts to treat syphilis, but as it stands, can completely cure it with modern treatments, the rise of drug-resistant strains notwithstanding. If modern psychopathology is still largely prescientific, which one can make a strong case for, this is because of psychopathology now, not psychopathology a century ago.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Medicine is barely a century removed from using mercury salts to treat syphilis A very good point, worth reminding ourselves regularly in general[0]: almost everything around you and me, everything that our lives depend on, or that helps us day-to-day, almost everything we see or interact with that isn't wild nature - all that has been made possible in the past ~200 years. Most of that in less than 100. Science as we understand it today, is less than 200 years old. Medicine stopped being voodoo less than a century ago. Petroleum chemistry and materials engineering have defined most of how modernity looks in general; like every other field of endeavor, they really kicked into gear ~100 years ago. Circling back to GP's statement: >> We're barely a century removed from phrenology being an accepted criminal forensic tool. That's because we're barely a century removed from being a proper technological civilization - one that follows knowledge in a systematic fashion, instead of folklore in a haphazard way. -- [0] - Especially when playing with notions that current age is no different than all the ages before. It really is.
thefaux 2y ago
I'm not sure what point is being made here. I agree that many people will mindlessly and uncritically accept labels. But this comment feels cynically critical of any attempt to study psychology. Psychology is hardly the only science with an embarrassing history and many mistakes.
- kthejoker2 2y ago
  My point wasn't to slam on psychology; just the article seems to imply identity through shallow psychological labels is a new phenomenon, when it is as old as civilization itself.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    And it’s not even just psychological labels, either. In East Asia, mostly Japan, blood types are used as a form of astrology (literally type A personalities). And in other contexts modern people sometimes self-identify based on their supposed chronotype or whether they’re an endomorph or an exomorph in order to retroactively explain their nature or behaviors. Self-identity is often used for self-justification.
Ferret7446 2y ago
It's not about "labels", it's about people embracing those labels as an identity. Historically, only a small proportion of the population would identify themselves by their zodiac sign, their temperament, whatever. Now, a growing, significant proportion are identifying themselves AS their disorder. That in itself, could be seen as a meta-disorder, as people are, and should be, more complex than a single label, let alone a disorder.
- ahartmetz 2y ago
  I think it is helpful for people to find that what is wrong with them isn't a unique character flaw but a well-known problem, so they can feel less guilty and maybe find known ways to cope. But that is all. What I don't like are things like using the label to reject responsibility for one's own actions because "all X are like that", being upfront about the label where it isn't necessary, glorifying the label ("X are good at Y"), and yes, forming an identity around the label. I guess it's kind of the zeitgeist what with identity politics and all that.
  - nicbou 2y ago
    That's exactly what it was for me. It's a lot easier to work on a problem when you know what it stems from, have a vocabulary to describe it, and can rely on proven fixes from people in the same situation. Hell, it's nice just to know that others are in a similar predicament and make relatable memes about it.
- chipdart 2y ago
  > Historically, only a small proportion of the population would identify themselves by their zodiac sign, their temperament, whatever. I don't think is true. Even Mensa, which by design is expected to be very exclusive, reportedly has over a hundred thousand members. Mensa is also one of many IQ-based social organizations. You also mention "small proportion of the population would identify themselves by their zodiac sign" but the horoscope was ever present in mainstream newspapers and is even published in dedicated magazines.

samatman 2y ago

> We're barely a century removed from phrenology being an accepted criminal forensic tool. This, specifically, is a bad argument. Medicine is barely a century removed from using mercury salts to treat syphilis, but as it stands, can completely cure it with modern treatments, the rise of drug-resistant strains notwithstanding. If modern psychopathology is still largely prescientific, which one can make a strong case for, this is because of psychopathology now, not psychopathology a century ago.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Medicine is barely a century removed from using mercury salts to treat syphilis A very good point, worth reminding ourselves regularly in general[0]: almost everything around you and me, everything that our lives depend on, or that helps us day-to-day, almost everything we see or interact with that isn't wild nature - all that has been made possible in the past ~200 years. Most of that in less than 100. Science as we understand it today, is less than 200 years old. Medicine stopped being voodoo less than a century ago. Petroleum chemistry and materials engineering have defined most of how modernity looks in general; like every other field of endeavor, they really kicked into gear ~100 years ago. Circling back to GP's statement: >> We're barely a century removed from phrenology being an accepted criminal forensic tool. That's because we're barely a century removed from being a proper technological civilization - one that follows knowledge in a systematic fashion, instead of folklore in a haphazard way. -- [0] - Especially when playing with notions that current age is no different than all the ages before. It really is.

thefaux 2y ago

I'm not sure what point is being made here. I agree that many people will mindlessly and uncritically accept labels. But this comment feels cynically critical of any attempt to study psychology. Psychology is hardly the only science with an embarrassing history and many mistakes.

kthejoker2 2y ago
My point wasn't to slam on psychology; just the article seems to imply identity through shallow psychological labels is a new phenomenon, when it is as old as civilization itself.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  And it’s not even just psychological labels, either. In East Asia, mostly Japan, blood types are used as a form of astrology (literally type A personalities). And in other contexts modern people sometimes self-identify based on their supposed chronotype or whether they’re an endomorph or an exomorph in order to retroactively explain their nature or behaviors. Self-identity is often used for self-justification.

Ferret7446 2y ago

It's not about "labels", it's about people embracing those labels as an identity. Historically, only a small proportion of the population would identify themselves by their zodiac sign, their temperament, whatever. Now, a growing, significant proportion are identifying themselves AS their disorder. That in itself, could be seen as a meta-disorder, as people are, and should be, more complex than a single label, let alone a disorder.

ahartmetz 2y ago
I think it is helpful for people to find that what is wrong with them isn't a unique character flaw but a well-known problem, so they can feel less guilty and maybe find known ways to cope. But that is all. What I don't like are things like using the label to reject responsibility for one's own actions because "all X are like that", being upfront about the label where it isn't necessary, glorifying the label ("X are good at Y"), and yes, forming an identity around the label. I guess it's kind of the zeitgeist what with identity politics and all that.
- nicbou 2y ago
  That's exactly what it was for me. It's a lot easier to work on a problem when you know what it stems from, have a vocabulary to describe it, and can rely on proven fixes from people in the same situation. Hell, it's nice just to know that others are in a similar predicament and make relatable memes about it.
chipdart 2y ago
> Historically, only a small proportion of the population would identify themselves by their zodiac sign, their temperament, whatever. I don't think is true. Even Mensa, which by design is expected to be very exclusive, reportedly has over a hundred thousand members. Mensa is also one of many IQ-based social organizations. You also mention "small proportion of the population would identify themselves by their zodiac sign" but the horoscope was ever present in mainstream newspapers and is even published in dedicated magazines.