
Psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid - jgalvez
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522609/
======
herodotus
I always imagined that a steep learning curve was metaphorically like a hill
that took increasing energy with increasing slope. Turns out that the axes of
a learning curve are learning on the y axis and experience on the x axis. So
if the curve is steep, you learned stuff quickly. Many other good examples in
the article. May the steep curve be with you.

~~~
lloeki
Everyone seems to assume the curve starts to shoot up at x=0. I always
imagined the steep learning curve's steepness as starting at x>0, thereby
creating some stalling or slow growing plateau requiring the bulk of the
effort before you reach a certain point where there's a huge, rewarding jump
(some "aha" moment) that releases all the build up tension. Compare A
(constant, please mentally unjag it) vs B (steep):

    
    
        |    A  _.-----
        |     _/ /
        |   _/  /
        | _/   /
        |/    / 
        |----'  B
        +--------------

~~~
racer-v
There could be delayed steepness, but I think most people would use "steep" to
refer to those moments of struggle and effort along the way, rather than the
"aha" feeling of suddenly elevated knowledge after the jump. I don't think
there's a term for the latter, except maybe a "satisfying" learning curve.

~~~
Tade0
I've begun to use the term "friendly", as it is unambiguously positive.

------
Alex3917
> Gold standard. In the domains of psychological and psychiatric assessment,
> there are precious few, if any, genuine "gold standards." Essentially all
> measures, even those with high levels of validity for their intended
> purposes, are necessarily fallible indicators of their respective
> constructs.

The reason we refer to double blind trials as being the "gold standard" isn't
to imply that they have some level of validity, but because they were
popularized by Harry Gold.

~~~
tlb
This guy?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gold).
Citation needed.

~~~
Alex3917
Different guy, I meant the Cornell professor:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714297/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714297/)

[https://books.google.com/books?id=wk-
OxcTKyi4C&pg=PA105&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=wk-
OxcTKyi4C&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=gold+standard+named+after+%22harry+gold%22&source=bl&ots=AXrPH2ypGm&sig=_cy8sz_s8L2OL3a-9jHnB-
Xwl_8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMv5WQ0sfYAhXLRt8KHbVUB14Q6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=gold%20standard%20named%20after%20%22harry%20gold%22&f=false)

------
maroonblazer
"We provide corrective information for students, instructors, and researchers
regarding these terms..."

I'm surprised they didn't include "the media" in this list.

------
sideshowb
I can't help thinking that sometimes scientific and "lay" use of a word
diverges beyond repair. With a linguistic hat on, who is to say who is right?

e.g. "energy", "weight", "hacker", and within the linked article "fetish". (In
a sentence which also displays ignorance of the difference between smartphone
and feature phone...)

The article is excellent, but I guess I'm saying in some cases you can try to
re-educate while in others you just have to accept that there are multiple
meanings of the same word.

~~~
theoh
The article is specifically about terms of art as used within the discipline.
So it's fine for it to be prescriptive.

~~~
sideshowb
Fair

------
aisofteng
A tangential comment, but - what excellent styles of both writing and
exposition!

------
YouAreGreat
Quoting some Dawkins on what "a gene for X" means:

When a geneticist speaks of a gene "for" red eyes in _Drosophilia_ , [...] he
is implicitly saying: there is variation in eye colour in the population;
other things being equal, a fly with this gene is more likely to have red eyes
than a fly without the gene. That is all that we ever mean by a gene "for" red
eyes.

------
tw1010
"Steep learning curve. Scores of authors use the phrase “steep learning curve”
or “sharp learning curve” in reference to a skill that is difficult to master.
For example, when referring to the difficulty of learning a complex surgical
procedure (endoscopic pituitary surgery), one author team contended that it
“requires a steep learning curve” (Koc et al., 2006, p. 299). Nevertheless,
from the standpoint of learning theory, these and other authors have it
backward, because a steep learning curve, i.e., a curve with a large positive
slope, is associated with a skill that is acquired easily and rapidly (Hopper
et al., 2007)."

Curve does not mean "slope". I feel like it's the "learning theory" folks that
aught to change their terminology for this one.

~~~
racer-v
I prefer "long learning curve" over "steep" for a task which takes a long time
to master:

> The term _learning curve_ with meanings of _easy_ and _difficult_ can be
> described with adjectives like _short_ and _long_ rather than _steep_ and
> _shallow_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_curve&se...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_curve&section=8#%22Steep_learning_curve%22)

------
elil17
If only every scientific field had a high quality list like this.

~~~
ohtwenty
Make a github for your own list, so others can contribute, and have it linked
in the bio of whatever online thing you use to talk about your field.

------
golemotron
It is interesting that the paper starts with a quote from Steven Pinker, who
coined the term 'euphemism treadmill'. When you change language because it is
occasionally misused you don't solve the problem, you just move it.

~~~
mantas
Not only you just move it, but you also contribute to it. What is worst,
putting the government force behind it validates such motion and makes future
precedent.

------
jhiska
All in all, from a certain perspective it's a nice list, but keep a critical
mind while reading it because the author sometimes seeks to rewrite the terms
used to advance his own views on what is valid and what isn't.

------
nickysielicki
I find it worrying that the buzzfeed template has found its way to
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Granted, they did dedicate an _entire_ paragraph to _fifty_
different complicated topics, but the feeling is the same.

~~~
mark_edward
Buzzfeed did not invent lists

~~~
nickysielicki
it's pretty well agreed that buzzfeed is responsible for bringing forth the
"listicle" format. How about you lighten up, eh?

~~~
grzm
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any similarity besides enumeration and
HTML with the NIH article posted here and a listicle you'd find on Buzzfeed,
much less find anything to worry about. It's well explained and referenced and
features no graphics or clickbait text.

~~~
nickysielicki
It's well referenced only on on a numeric scale; the breadth of topics makes
the 209 links irrelevant. A great deal of the points are semantic in nature--
yes, It's not exactly correct to say that schizophrenia is "genetically
determined" if genetics only are 90% responsible, so what? Yes,
antidepressants are technically selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibitors.
Authors tend to use simpler and mostly-correct terms instead of very
complicated but completely-correct terms in order to communicate their ideas
properly. This is a necessary trade-off that is made when communicating with
human language.

It's akin to clickbait in that it's inflammatory by design. "50 Psychological
and psychiatric terms to avoid" or "25 Foods You'll Never Be Able To Eat
Again", the point is to cheaply engage the reader with terms they _probably_
use (or food they _probably_ eat) in order to reel them in. Then you hammer
the same point into dozens of different situations.

~~~
pdkl95
> A great deal of the points are semantic in nature

Yes, they are cautioning against using terms that are frequently misunderstood
or encourage jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

> genetics only are 90% responsible

From section (1) of the paper:

>> Moreover, genome-wide association studies of major psychiatric disorders,
such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, suggest that there are probably
few or no genes of major effect

> so what?

Your suggestion that genetics could be "90% responsible" when available
evidence is suggesting "few or no genes of major effect" is a good example of
the kind of counterfactual belief that the paper is trying to fix.

> Yes, antidepressants are technically selective-serotonin-reuptake-
> inhibitors.

From section (2) of the paper:

>> 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

Again, this isn't a minor technical quibble. The actual evidence for SSRIs
(etc) having effects that counteract depression is thin and open to a lot of
interpretation. Calling them "antidepressants" gives the _incorrect,
misleading_ impression that we know actually understand how depression works
or how it is affected by these medications.

