Pet Peeve
Category rants
Last year, Ned Batchelder requested that his readers think twice before using the term "retarded" as a cheap punchline. Having occasionally made that mistake, I'm glad he called attention to why that's uncool. So I'm making a similar request: please think twice before describing indecision or hypocrisy as "schizophrenia".
When someone hears voices and suffers from delusions, that's schizophrenia. For example, Joan of Arc claimed to have visions from God instructing her to liberate France from English occupation... if those visions were not actually from God - and I don't claim to know whether they were or not - then that's a delusion. That's schizophrenia. Auditory hallucination, especially when combined with a belief that you've been singled out somehow, is schizophrenia. Maybe the delusion is that you were asked to do something (by God, by Jodie Foster, etc.), maybe it's paranoia (hence the term "paranoid schizophrenic"); for example, you think you're constantly being followed or watched. The point is, the primary indicator of schizophrenia is an incorrect belief; if you're actually being followed or watched, you're not delusional (at least, not about that)... but if your brain is telling you that you are when you aren't, you might be a schizophrenic.
On the other hand, if someone behaves as if they have several completely distinct personalities, that's dissociative identity disorder, previously referred to as "multiple personality disorder". For example, in the movie Fight Club, the narrator is dissociative: he switches between his "normal" identity and his "rebel" personality, and even imagines the two personalitites interacting. That's not schizophrenia, that's dissociative identity disorder.
It might seem nitpicky for me to care about the distinction, but I have several close friends who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and the stigma attached to it really bugs me. Even the term "mental illness" remains a misnomer, as many disorders that get lumped into it are physiological and not some flaw in the patient's intellect. As a result, with proper treatment, most individuals can function normally. In fact, because cognitive behavioral therapy is often used to treat schizophrenia, it's not uncommon for a patient to make more rational decisions than "sane" people because they have more insight into their own thoughts, emotions, and beliefs, and how each impacts their behavior and motivations.
Chances are excellent that you know at least one person who is "crazy" but you don't know that they are, because although they've received the help they need and can therefore live a completely normal life, the stigma - and discrimination - attached to mental illness is such that most will only admit their condition to people they know they can trust to not freak out about it. So please, before you glibly label someone a "schizo" because they act differently in different contexts, take a deep breath and realize that you might actually be talking to someone who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, is tired of people who haven't done enough research to even know the difference between one disorder and another using the term as a pejorative... and, more likely than not, is saner than you.
Last year, Ned Batchelder requested that his readers think twice before using the term "retarded" as a cheap punchline. Having occasionally made that mistake, I'm glad he called attention to why that's uncool. So I'm making a similar request: please think twice before describing indecision or hypocrisy as "schizophrenia".
When someone hears voices and suffers from delusions, that's schizophrenia. For example, Joan of Arc claimed to have visions from God instructing her to liberate France from English occupation... if those visions were not actually from God - and I don't claim to know whether they were or not - then that's a delusion. That's schizophrenia. Auditory hallucination, especially when combined with a belief that you've been singled out somehow, is schizophrenia. Maybe the delusion is that you were asked to do something (by God, by Jodie Foster, etc.), maybe it's paranoia (hence the term "paranoid schizophrenic"); for example, you think you're constantly being followed or watched. The point is, the primary indicator of schizophrenia is an incorrect belief; if you're actually being followed or watched, you're not delusional (at least, not about that)... but if your brain is telling you that you are when you aren't, you might be a schizophrenic.
On the other hand, if someone behaves as if they have several completely distinct personalities, that's dissociative identity disorder, previously referred to as "multiple personality disorder". For example, in the movie Fight Club, the narrator is dissociative: he switches between his "normal" identity and his "rebel" personality, and even imagines the two personalitites interacting. That's not schizophrenia, that's dissociative identity disorder.
It might seem nitpicky for me to care about the distinction, but I have several close friends who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and the stigma attached to it really bugs me. Even the term "mental illness" remains a misnomer, as many disorders that get lumped into it are physiological and not some flaw in the patient's intellect. As a result, with proper treatment, most individuals can function normally. In fact, because cognitive behavioral therapy is often used to treat schizophrenia, it's not uncommon for a patient to make more rational decisions than "sane" people because they have more insight into their own thoughts, emotions, and beliefs, and how each impacts their behavior and motivations.
Chances are excellent that you know at least one person who is "crazy" but you don't know that they are, because although they've received the help they need and can therefore live a completely normal life, the stigma - and discrimination - attached to mental illness is such that most will only admit their condition to people they know they can trust to not freak out about it. So please, before you glibly label someone a "schizo" because they act differently in different contexts, take a deep breath and realize that you might actually be talking to someone who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, is tired of people who haven't done enough research to even know the difference between one disorder and another using the term as a pejorative... and, more likely than not, is saner than you.
Comments
Most people recognize when the words they choose are uncivil or inappropriate. They choose to do it because they consider it harmless. What you're showing is that you never know whether the person across from you is in the group you're offending. I can't tell you how many times I hear "that's so gay", and when I explain to people that I'm gay and find it offensive they start backpedaling. The point is to not use hurtful language in the first place.
Here are a couple of sources that have been useful for me: { Link } { Link }
Thanks for posting this.
Posted by Charles Robinson At 09:13:03 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
Another example is my "chiropractor" post a few months ago. In that case, I was trying to make a point which could have been made without an analogy, but chose to use one anyway (and chose poorly), and in so doing insulted an entire profession I know almost nothing about based purely on hearsay. Not the worst of mistakes, of course, but that incident did get me thinking a bit more about the words I choose and what my motivation is for choosing one another. I think that's what it boils down to... if I think something is unfair, but instead say, "that's retarded", why? Why not just say it's unfair? I think if we're honest, we'll admit that when we use terms that originated to describe (often objectively) groups of individuals to instead describe something negative, it's because we're actually trying to be controversial. Not necessarily consciously, but deep down we chose that word because it just packs more punch than a less offensive alternative... but there's a reason for that: it unfairly projects whatever negative attributes we assign to what we're describing at the time onto all members of the group originally (if not still) associated with that term.
I'll be the first to admit that I think some people are too easily offended... no matter how sensitive and careful you are, they'll find some way to take issue with a term you used, perhaps even your inflection. It's futile to attempt to completely avoid ever offending anyone. But my own goal for now is to be just a bit more mindful of why I choose the words I do and gradually keep making better choices.
Posted by Tim Tripcony At 10:29:34 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
{ Link }
{ Link }
Posted by Kerr At 11:30:01 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Pops At 13:42:12 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Tim Tripcony At 14:23:53 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
Kerr, I think you not only missed the point of Tim's post, you just did what he asked you not to do. Stating an opinion as a fact doesn't make it true, and I strongly disagree with you. You may be interested to know that in the US chiropractors are licensed and board certified.
Posted by Charles Robinson At 14:48:49 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
Posted by Pops At 17:51:04 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
That's not just a statement of opinion, it's backed up by a complete absence of any scientific basis to this ridiculous practice. If it did have some basis in fact, it would be backed up by sound clinical evidence. Evidence that is sorely lacking. Just like Homoeopathy.
Charles, you may have been lucky in only dealing with Chiropractors that act as under trained physical therapists. There are Chiropractors out there that will try and convince that all diseases are curable through their pseudo-science. This is dangerous and can lead to people turning to this snake oil in place of extremely efficacious modern medical treatments.
Unfortunately the US Chiropractors are "Board Certified" by any of a number of organisations that have as much academic veracity as my shiny new phd in telekinesis from the university of Woolandia. By licensed, I meant licensed by a regulated medical authority, like the General Medical Council in the UK (Not sure what the US equivalent is). Since Chiropractic is not recognised as medicine, the practice unregulated and can be done by anyone without falling foul of laws such as practicing medicine without a licence. If you want medicine, go to someone who is licensed to practice it.
If you want to discuss this further, please email me.
Sorry to hijack the thread Tim, but you know, the subject was "Pet Peeve".
Posted by Kerr At 18:23:06 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
Two comments:
The last time I threw my back out so bad that my wife and my neighbor had to physically lift me into the car just to go to my licensed physician (real for sure medical doctor with the degree hanging on the wall) and was given some pills for the pain and told to just wait it out. I then went to one of those quacks you refer to only out of desperation as I used to feel the same as you. Within five minutes I was able to stand up on my own, pain free and walk out the door.
My second point is that I used to have a number of developers that were certified (by Lotus) that couldn't develop their way out of a wet paper bag. Certification isn't everything. I apologize also for highjacking. Tim can tell you that my biggest problem in my working (with Notes) days was my utter inability to keep my opinion to myself.
Posted by Pops At 18:40:02 On 06/18/2008 | - Website - |
Certification isn't in and of itself worth anything, unless the accreditation program can demonstrate its worth. The Lotus certification used to. be worth very little because the standard required to pass it was very low. Any qualification that can be attained after a one week training course and no other real experience has not worth in discriminating (see, topical) between junior and senior developers.
Other IT qualifications are much more respected because to pass them you have to demonstrate a much higher ability. I believe to get the top Cisco certifications they put you in a room with a dead router and get you to fix it. Now that's worth something.
Happily it looks like Lotus, thanks to Duffbert et al, is turning round the perception of the Lotus certifications with the new ND8 exams. Making these much harder to pass is good for those seeking good staff / consultants and those wishing to demonstrate their abilities.
Finally, if someone wants to post on the subject of Chiropractic somewhere else, or Tim indicates he is happy to have the discussion continue here, I'll counter your first point.
Posted by Kerr At 04:30:03 On 06/19/2008 | - Website - |