The goal of this article is to promote clear thinking and clear writing among students and teachers of psychological science by curbing terminological misinformation and confusion. To this end, we present a provisional list of 50 commonly used terms in psychology, psychiatry, and allied fields that should be avoided, or at most used sparingly and with explicit caveats. We provide corrective information for students, instructors, and researchers regarding these terms, which we organize for expository purposes into five categories: inaccurate or misleading terms, frequently misused terms, ambiguous terms, oxymorons, and pleonasms. For each term, we (a) explain why it is problematic, (b) delineate one or more examples of its misuse, and (c) when pertinent, offer recommendations for preferable terms. By being more judicious in their use of terminology, psychologists and psychiatrists can foster clearer thinking in their students and the field at large regarding mental phenomena.
That comment is something of a non sequitur to me. Abstracting recently published papers doesn’t strike me as a central example of a news feed, and I’m not sure why such abstracts don’t belong in our open threads (granted, those abstracts might be better suited to the media thread).
I don’t appreciate having information thrown at me without explanation. I visit the open thread (And LW) to see what people have to say. Unless the user is the publisher of the paper, they should be including their own reason for sharing; some kind of explanation of why this copy-paste is better than drivel found anywhere else on the internet.
I believe this lowers the standard of the place we have here to have an anonymous user posting in this way.
Multiple solutions:
get an account
stop posting
include comments or analysis
start a new thread for it so it doesn’t cloud up the OT
The Open Thread is for all posts that don’t necessitate their own thread. The media thread is for recommendations on entertainment. I don’t see why comments should be necessary to bring a paper to LWs attention, especially in the Open Thread, and others clearly disagree with your opinion on this matter.
There is a combination of multiple factors that I have an issue with.
anonymous user
multiple posts
no commentary or discussion started
link outbound
repeated process each week
Alone I have no problem with any of these things (or a few of them); together they add up to; “that which by slow decay” destroys the nature of Lesswrong as we had it before.
There are multiple reasonable solutions to this problem; which include:
me leaving Lesswrong for greener pastures.
changing any of the 5 things:
making an account
posting less each week
starting a discussion
not linking outbound (but also not starting content that links outbound)
not doing it every week
But I would like the 5 changes to be tackled first before I leave.
Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases by Scott O. Lilienfeld1, Katheryn C. Sauvigné, Steven Jay Lynn, Robin L. Cautin, Robert D. Latzman and Irwin D. Waldman
If I wanted a news feed I would be on a news website. This does not belong in an open-thread.
make an account (of your own if you plan to keep posting in this way)
actually make comments; not just quoting the contents of links
start a link-thread if you must (edit: there is a media thread)
That comment is something of a non sequitur to me. Abstracting recently published papers doesn’t strike me as a central example of a news feed, and I’m not sure why such abstracts don’t belong in our open threads (granted, those abstracts might be better suited to the media thread).
I don’t appreciate having information thrown at me without explanation. I visit the open thread (And LW) to see what people have to say. Unless the user is the publisher of the paper, they should be including their own reason for sharing; some kind of explanation of why this copy-paste is better than drivel found anywhere else on the internet.
I believe this lowers the standard of the place we have here to have an anonymous user posting in this way.
Multiple solutions:
get an account
stop posting
include comments or analysis
start a new thread for it so it doesn’t cloud up the OT
The Open Thread is for all posts that don’t necessitate their own thread. The media thread is for recommendations on entertainment. I don’t see why comments should be necessary to bring a paper to LWs attention, especially in the Open Thread, and others clearly disagree with your opinion on this matter.
There is a combination of multiple factors that I have an issue with.
anonymous user
multiple posts
no commentary or discussion started
link outbound
repeated process each week
Alone I have no problem with any of these things (or a few of them); together they add up to; “that which by slow decay” destroys the nature of Lesswrong as we had it before.
There are multiple reasonable solutions to this problem; which include:
me leaving Lesswrong for greener pastures.
changing any of the 5 things:
making an account
posting less each week
starting a discussion
not linking outbound (but also not starting content that links outbound)
not doing it every week
But I would like the 5 changes to be tackled first before I leave.