Talk:Psychobabble

The content of this article was moved back from Psychobabble (jargon). There was a Psychobabble page maybe since Jan. 03, but the Psychobabble page was moved to _(jargon) after a page was created for the same term in relation to a Web forum. The related page was deleted Jan. 21, 2006, [1] so there is no need for a disambiguation page, nor for a parenthetical suffix to this term.

My effort to redirect back to Psychobabble was complicated because a disambiguation page was created Jan. 18th, whereas when I last checked, there was a "no article" message for the term instead. Then, I somehow got an edit window for the original term, and redirected the article back here from the disambiguation page because there is nothing to disambiguate.

In the mean time, talk has developed about the origin and meaning of the term, so please visit the other talk page that was created while Psychobabble was wandering around the Wiki. It's probably best to continue discussion here. ProveReader 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayward article history: [2][3]

The following was relocated back here from: Talk:Psychobabble_(jargon)

name change

I just changed the name from Psycho-babble to Psychobabble (jargon) for 2 reasons: (1) to disambiguate it from the new article about the Psycho-Babble web site and (2) while we're at it, let's correct the spelling to WITHOUT a hyphen. (See all the dictionary references below on this talk page.)Nadirsofar 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the articles that link here and I fixed a double-redirect. This issue (about the spelling without a hyphen) has been discussed before and this is the time to fix it.Nadirsofar 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article as well as LGAT strongly needs NPOVing. I'm no native speaker and I consider this as jargon, so it's too hard for me to work on it myself. -- JeLuF

Indeed, for example: "Users of psychological jargon may argue that cynics have invented the term as a defence against the cynics' own deep, repressed fears and traumas." --PolyGnome 09:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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) -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 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.) -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?) -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.Nadirsofar 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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! -nadirsofar 25 June 2005

List of Terms

The list of terms goes way beyond Psychobabble to include some politcally correct and business jargon words and needs a good clean up. 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 Buzzwords 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 life, meaning, openness, having passion, on the planet, possibility, projects, 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. Lumos3 15:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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? -- Palfrey 14:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any support for 'psycho-babble == field'?

So far not one piece of evidence or one voice of support has been raised here to support the idea that "psycho-babble" is used to disparage the whole field. If no further support is voiced by October 15, 2005, let's eliminate that usage as unverified. At the most, it deserves a mention as a usage of the term -- not leading mention as the usage of the term, as is the case now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this. The article's still going to need more work; someone seems to have used it to slide past the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" rule: "Aha! I think that the whole field of psychology is a bunch of claptrap and I use the term 'psychobabble' to express my contempt! If I say I'm just explaining what people who use the word 'psychobabble' mean when they use it, I can express at length my own disdain!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed -- origin of term

The following was inserted directly in the article by 160.79.218.85 (talk · contribs) in 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. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com does list such a book (Atheneum, 1977)[4] ProveReader 04:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Lumos3 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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". -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-------End of section relocated from wayward talk page------

Revisions

Based in the Princeton WordNet definition cited above, Psychobabble refers not to jargon, but to the usage of jargon. I corrected the first sentence to refer to the usage, but preserved an expanded concept based in popular appreciation of the term "psychobabble". Usage of the term psychobabble as popularized in Rosen's well-known text of 1977 refers at least as much to speech (written or spoken), and to the net load of jargon in speech, as to the jargon that loads speech.

Except in the overly narrow definition, the article prior to my edits correctly discussed both usage and the jargon itself. It would be difficult to discuss use of the jargon without reference to the elements of the jargon, but the definition cannot properly limit psychobabble to the elements that load speech. In the "compare with" section the introductory definition of psychobabble as jargon was already rendered dubious by the phrase "words used in psychobabble". Precisely, babble is speech, and jargon is words. But since the word "psychobabble" itself is now widely used as jargon, its meanings are diverse.

In at least one instance, meanings within sentences were contradictory. "Sources ... suggested to be using ... include phraseology..." Phraseology is not a source that uses, it is a usage by a source.

I'm moving the following sentence here because after an extended wait, we have no citation:

The term dates from the 1960s, the era of origin of popular widespread analysis and of counselling groups. It was coined by science fiction writers Walt Richmond in 1961 at Milford, Pennsylvania at Arrowhead. ^{[dubious – discuss]}

Though we have no citation, we should not be too quick to conclude a basis will not be found for the assertion. The talk page post attributed to Rosen may still be a less than complete statement of origin, because the writer claims coinage but doesn't cite an exhaustive literature review to determine whether the term was used before he believed he originally coined it. But Rosen's published work is widely circulated and is the most probably factor in the spread of popular usage. Similar problems plagues the claim that it was coined by "writers" Walt Richmond. The paragraph attributes the coinage both to a decade and to an era, to both a writer and to writers. The qualifying adjectives "popular" and "widespread" are so vague that when attributed to both an era and a decade, and to different topics -- pscyhoanalysis and group therapy -- each of which can be found in examples prior to the vague time period in question, it seems unlikely that this is a precise statement of origin. What does it mean that the term "dates" from this era? We are offered a specific date, within a few hundred days, but tangible no evidence to establish origin.

Apologies to Rosen if the following doesn't adequately summarize his text: The text explores a virtual explosion of pscyhological treatments in professional and non-professional settings related on conversational approaches that failed to address underlying social and personal conflicts. If I find a copy of the book, I might more accurately summarize its premise.

I'm also exiling the following to this talk page for how. Is the paragraph an example of pscyhobabble or is it about pscyhobabble? It seems to me an effort to offer an example of psychobabble about psychobabble, but we have no citation. Who are these "critics" and which "users of psyhological jargon" are addressed in the paragraph"?

Users of psychological jargon argue that critics have invented the term "Psychobabble" as a defense against the critics' own deep, repressed fears and traumas. By attacking and undermining the whole language of personal exploration, the critics attempt to ensure that the time when they may have to acknowledge these parts of their own psyches gets pushed into the distant future.
Critics would probably reject this argument -- because to them, it is psychobabble.

The claim that critics "would probably" reject the unattributed argument is speculative. If "critics" do indeed reject the argument, we should have a citation. Also, each side of an argument is critical, so describing one of the parties as "critics" can lead to confusion.

ProveReader 21:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted reference to "psychopablum" because Google returns 31 hits, most of which seem to point to Wikipedia forks, in one case as a derivative of "pablum". The link here pointed back to a deleted article defining a neologism at best [5]. That left orphaned sentences in that section "compare with" and in "origins" so I consolidated those sections elsewhere.

Each with a usage example and an explanation of their possible English meaning.

This is a sentence fragment, and not reflective of the content of the list that follows. The list is problematic in that it is overly general, but I'm not tackling that just now. ProveReader 22:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]