View source for Talk:Psychobabble/Archives/2012

{{Talkarchive}}

== reverting & changes ==

=== definition=== 
The anonymous 12-Jan-2005 edit changed ''psychobabble'' from a derogatory term for '''jargon''' to a derogatory term for '''the entire field of psychology.''' There is no support for that definition. These dictionaries all define ''psychobabble'' as jargon only and NOT as the field:

* Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed (1989)
* Dictionary of Psychology (A. Colman, editor; Oxford, 2001)
* New Oxford American Dictionary (2001)
* American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed (1996)
* Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th ed (2003)
* Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed (1993)
* Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary
* Princeton University's WordNet (online) -[[user:nadirsofar|nadirsofar]] 25 June 2005

=== coinage=== 
In a bit of searching, I still find no corroboration for the Walt Richmond attribution. Oxford's psych dictionary credits Rosen and dates it to 1977. RH says it was ''popularized'' by Rosen's 1977 book but doesn't credit him with coinage. MWC dates it to 1975. No reference was given for the "dates from the 1960s" line. I say that the 1961 Richmond credit should be considered [[Wikipedia:No_original_research | original research]] for now and deleted. "Popularized by Rosen's book" seems indisputable, even if a Richmond source is found later.

(Anyway the "era of origin for widespread" psychoanalysis was, like, the 1920s-50s; by the 1960s it had peaked; group counseling wasn't "spreading wide" until the 1970s.) -[[user:nadirsofar|nadirsofar]] 25 June 2005

=== spelling === 
All the above dictionaries spell it WITHOUT the hyphen. I don't know what the guidelines are for changing the title, but I think it should be done. (Um, how ''do'' you change the title?) -[[user:nadirsofar|nadirsofar]] 25 June 2005

Six months is enough warning. This article was originally, ''correctly'', without a hyphen. I don't know why the 2003 edit was made to hyphenate it, but whoever did it can't overrule the OED, M-W, RH, etc etc. So it's fixed. I also corrected the spelling in the articles that link here when I updated those links.[[User:Nadirsofar|Nadirsofar]] 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

=== NOPV ===
The dictionaries all specify or imply it's the ''use'' of the jargon that makes it psychobabble, not something inherent in the terms. Some rewording needed to reflect that. Also, all the unreferenced stuff about unnamed critics (of what, exactly?) and their unspecified opinions should be deleted. No one doubts that jargon ''can'' be employed in an empty or ignorant way. If there is published controversy about the term, quote it! -[[user:nadirsofar|nadirsofar]] 25 June 2005

I question whether psychobabble is a form of "jargon" at all, and I think the definition needs more focus.  Technical terms used by practitioners (e.g. neurotic, paranoia, cathexis, repression, ego) may be jargon, but are not normally called psychobabble, even when misapplied.  Psychobabble is rather used to mean the language in which patients, or members of self-help therapy groups, are encouraged to express themselves: "threatened", "concerning" (as in "That's very concerning") and so on.  (There is a precursor for this in Catholicism.  The technical term for sinful sexual fantasies is ''delectatio morosa'', but people at confession speak of "impure thoughts".)  I think we do need a list of examples, but they should probably be confined to those in the original book. 

The main criticism of such language (to be recorded as occurring, but without agreement or disagreement, and I agree we need to find documentary evidence) is that it is like nineteenth century evangelical language ("conviction, conversion, regeneration") or Marxist jargon ("lickspittle capitalist running-dogs"): less a means of conveying content than a badge of belonging to the in-group of the "saved", and a device for letting the language do your thinking for you. I seem to remember, a long time ago, an article in the Times by Philip Howard articulating this criticism.  -- [[User:Sirmylesnagopaleentheda|Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da)]] 10:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

==List of Terms==
The list of terms goes way beyond Psychobabble to include some politically correct and business jargon words and needs a good clean up. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 11:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would submit as more-or-less normal terms (not extremely psychobabble) or pretty uncommon: change, communication, enrollment (?), expressing feelings, leadership, racket, spaced-out, stuff... But I'm open to a grounded, win-win visioning here.
[[User:duldan]] 23 Jun 2005

:I have removed the following which are either management [[Buzzword]]s or just inexplicable. I have also started to add some explanation and uses to the terms left in the list. 
::  access to,  alignment,  [[acknowledgement]],  [[change]],  communication,  conversation,  [[creativity]],  enrollment,  expressing feelings,  [[integrity]],  [[leadership]],  in one's [[personal life | life]],  meaning,  openness,  having [[passion (emotion)|passion]],  on the planet,  possibility,  [[project]]s,  [[quality]],  [[racket]],  really / reality,  [[responsibility]],  [[spirituality]],  taking a stand,  [[team]] spirit,  it (just) works . 
:If anyone can show how they are used as Psychobabble please put them back.  [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 15:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also removing "win-win" as that is corporate jargon more than it is psychobabble.  It belongs with "thinking outside the box" and "110%" etc.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.135.180.13|71.135.180.13]] ([[User talk:71.135.180.13|talk]]) 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Clarification==
The article uses the word 'grandiloquent', which I (as a native English speaker) have never heard, and I think needs re-wording. I'm not however sure what would be a good replacement/fix here. Ideas anyone? -- [[User:Palfrey|Palfrey]] 14:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

== Disputed -- origin of term ==

The following was inserted directly in the article by {{user|160.79.218.85}} in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psycho-babble&diff=28509857&oldid=25675190 this edit]:

:NO. I COINED THE TERM IN 1975 WHEN WRITING A BOOK REVIEW FOR THE BOSTON PHOENIX OF RUSSELL JACOBY'S BOOK, SOCIAL AMNESIA, IN APRIL 1975. YOU WILL FIND NO EARLIER USE OF WORD, BECAUSE I HADN'T INVENTED IT YET! IN OCTOBER OF 1975, I WROTE COVER STORY "PSYCHOBABBLE" FOR NEW TIMES MAG, THEN PUBLISHED BOOK BY THAT NAME IN 1977 (ATHENEUM). YOU WILL FIND ME PROPERLY CREDITED IN WILLIAM SAFIRE COLUMN, TIME MAGAZINE, AND NUMEROUS DICTIONARIES. FALSE INFORMATION BELOW IS BIZARRELY IMAGINATIVE! MY E-MAIL IS RICHARDR@WORKMAN.COM. THANKS.

There seems to have been a 1977 book written by a Richard Dean Rosen titled ''Psychobabble''; I can't determine whether it was Atheneum that published it. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:Amazon.com does list such a book (Atheneum, 1977)[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0689107757/qid=1137814394/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7747698-6314234?s=books&v=glance&n=283155] [[User:ProveReader|ProveReader]] 04:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

==Psychobabble v Psychobabble (jargon)==
Why has this page been moved from Psychobabble to Psycho-babble (jargon)? The rule should be to keep article headings simple. There is no need to add parenthesis unless it is likely to be confused with another word. The article itself should explain that the word is a kind of jargon. It is adding unnecessary complexity. I think it should be moved back  [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:I agree; the page currently at [[Psychobabble (jargon)]] is clearly the most widespread use of the word.  It should be what people get when they link the term "psychobabble". -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

'''-------End of section relocated from [[talk:Psychobabble_(jargon)|wayward talk page]]------'''

== relevance at external link ==

upon reading this entry, i wonder about the relevance of the external link at "thewarmandfuzzy.com". although i only looked at the first page of that site, i wonder if it belongs here. any other opinions?[[User:Platypusjones|Platypusjones]] 15:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

== Defence of examples list ==
I think the article is fairly meaningless unless it gives some examples of what its talking about. I have restored the Examples list and added some reference points. Ideally each reference should link to an external source which charges the word of being Psychobabble. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 09:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
**i agree that a list of examples should be offered, however i support previous critiques that some of the terms might be outside the scope of "psychobabble" in some way. i typically tend to think of psychobabble within the context of clinical/therapeutic psychology. thus, psychobabble includes "validation", "empowerment", even "getting in touch with the inner child".  true, there is industrial/orgainzation psychobabble (proffered by I/O psychologists?), which gives us the business jargon, but it might be necessary to differentiate that in this entry.  [[User:Platypusjones|Platypusjones]] 15:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== Introduction ==

I've rewritten the introduction to hopefully make it clearer. Before it said that the users of psychobabble were non-professionals and at the same time it said that it was used in management training. I've made it clear that psychobabble has been used in psychology to denote the use of the psychological terms outside of the intended purpose or by people without the psych. experience or understanding. --[[User:Comaze|Comaze]] 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

== Introduction, questions ==

"For example, homosexuality was previously listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as psychopathological, when in fact it has been well disproven that humans with homosexual tendencies are not by default psychopathological."

As stated, I think the writer is asserting that it has been disproven that homosexual tendencies are not psychopathological. Inverting the negatives, this would say perhaps that it has been proven that homosexual tendencies are psychopathological? If I assume NPOV on this subject, and that my own command of both English and logic are adequate, then I must assume the writer intended this result. Did the writer really intend to say that it has been proven that humans with homosexual tendencies are not psychopathological?

In the spirit of NPOV, I would question whether the assertion in the introduction has been well disproven, or well proven, or whatever was intended, without referencing some scientific, experimentally verifiable proof. Or perhaps a less controversial example could be presented, or maybe no example at all.[[User:DillyTont|DillyTont]] ([[User talk:DillyTont|talk]]) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

: This looks like mangled English (double negative) causing confusion, and it is also unwieldy.  It would be clearer to write "For example, homosexuality was previously listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as psychopathological, when in fact this diagnosis has been disproven." [[User:ProlixDog|ProlixDog]] ([[User talk:ProlixDog|talk]]) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::Rather than make anonymous people authorities on what is "proof" why not "When in fact (oops -- no need for "in fact" - that's like writing "hey you... really believe this. it's really really true") but homosexual behavior is not diagnosed as psychopatholigical" <--- just write what happened and there is no need for dubious "in fact, it's proven!" claims that serve mostly to discredit the speaker among any but sympathetic readers. 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Two dower|Two dower]] ([[User talk:Two dower|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Two dower|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Origins ==

Why no discussion anywhere that Psychobabble was, at first, a peculiarly American phenomenom that sadly caught on in the rest of the world? [[Special:Contributions/81.156.124.135|81.156.124.135]] ([[User talk:81.156.124.135|talk]]) 11:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)