I hate to add to a discussion that has such a nice ending- however…
I am a film theory student. In my studies, I’ve encountered a lot of psychoanalytic theory in regards to language, images and culture. These theorys do not actually take the things that Freud said as the truth, but rather use his terms and concepts to analyze cultural products.
This kind of theory will often refer to a “schitzophrenic” narrator, for example, without actually refering to a narrator that has schitzophrenia. In this wierd academic world these terms have taken on new implications and can be applyed in wierd new ways. It’s kind of hard to understand- I hardly get it myself- but it does seem to be a useful and acceptable use of these terms despite the fact that they are divorced from the mental illnesses they usually refer to.
Now what bugs me is when people say “anatomy is destiny” to refer to gender roles, when the original quote doesn’t have anything to do with that. It simply means that we are bound to be screwed up because our sex organs are near our eliminatory organs. Nothing to do with gender! Nothing at all!
ever since taking psych101, it’s come to my attention how “schizophrenic” is used by many to address any and every mental illness. Only one of many my friends. A more recent one too.
Except those are words that were originally from colloquial speech. So it’s the mathematicians that are, technically speaking, using the terms incorrectly. The set of rational numbers isn’t actually countable.
And how long before that word gets corrupted and we have to find a new one? I think that these people have enough problems without keeping track of what this week’s term for their condition is.
I must say, this is a novel way of combatting ignorance. Instead of changing people’s beliefs to fit the facts, just change the facts to fit people’s belief. Hey, I think most people think that the capital of Austrailia is Sydney. Shouldn’t Austrailians change their capital to Sydney so that these people will be right? After all, that would require less effort than convincing everyone that Sydney isn’t the capital.
The ignorance that we’re discussing here has little to do with the condition, and everything to do with the term, which has long ago and quite successfully been hijacked.
If you see a schizophrenic - just see and interact with him, without having any idea what the name of his condition is - you don’t think, “split personality”.
The “split personality” confusion has nothing to do with the condition of schizophrenia. Its source is the term, and the term alone.
This is why changing the name of the condition would be by far the most efficacious solution to this problem.
I think that’s a pretty solid argument. Maybe there’s a hole in it that I can’t see, but it’s not exactly the arguing-on-the-side-of-ignorance POS you seem to think it is - and you can’t go accusing people of fighting for ignorance simply because you think you’re right and they’re wrong.
Well, you can, I suppose, but around here, it’ll cost you.
So far, my argument holds. As discussed in my previous post, the only reason they associate Adam’s condition with “split personality” is because of the long and successful hijacking of the term. It has nothing to do with the condition. If Adam’s condition had another name, the condition itself would not inspire any suggestion of “split personality”.
Now, back to you:
So, what level of decisiveness is located where?
In addressing the mental health profession, which has the power to effect change in this matter, it’s completely reasonable to expect that they do so.
Adam doesn’t have this power, nor does his boss. Accordingly, this is a red herring. All Adam’s boss can do is decide what to do within the limitations of his powers.
Now, back to you again:
No, it won’t help affirmative understanding of his condition, but it will remove an obstacle to that understanding.
The obstacle, of course, is the “split personality” hangup that people don’t derive from the condition itself. People have a hard time getting to the point where they can think about schizophrenia itself, because the damned ‘split personality’ business is always in the way, and must be cleared out first. Despite the absence of any connection between the two.
So will changing the name make educating people about the condition easier? It certainly should, I’d argue - because you’d be starting from zero, rather than from minus-50.
I’d agree that Adam’s boss is being a jerk.
The difference is one of control and decisiveness. Adam’s boss has a schizophrenic right there, and he can act to make a major difference in his environment.
The 250 million people making jokes equating schizophrenia with split personality, OTOH, will behave consonant with the laws governing behavior of large numbers of anything. Their individual decisions will more or less cancel each other out over time, unless some outside force acts on them as a group in a strong enough manner to move the behavior of the entire group.
My point isn’t that they shouldn’t try to make good decisions, but that bettering the lot of schizophrenics by educating people, one at a time, about a misconception unrelated to their condition is a slow, thankless, and unlikely way to effect change. If it were the only way, that would be the way you’d have to go. But in this instance, it’s not - a body with decisive capabilities exists.
And when they’ve renamed schizophrenia, you can use _________ Awareness Week to educate people about misconceptions stemming from the condition itself, rather than one whose source is a fluke event in the history of the language.
No biggie. After all, you didn’t misspell it as ‘goat-felcher’ or something.
That’s where we disagree. People will always have a weaker grasp of conditions affecting mental health than of those visibly affecting the body, for obvious reasons. And every mental health condition will carry with it misunderstandings that flow from the condition and its symptoms. But this one carries a big, fat misunderstanding that has no connection with the condition, and that you’ve got to get people past - before you can reach Square One with respect to educating them about schizophrenia itself.
In terms of education, keeping the existing name requires you to perennially do a lot of heavy lifting, educating people about something that has nothing to do with schizophrenia, before you can educate them about schizophrenia.
Seems kinda self-defeating, if you ask me. But no one is.
Yes, thank you thank you thank you! When will ‘cow-orker’ go the way of ‘all your base’?
My point is that ‘schizophrenia’ is misused in a very different way from, say, Tourette’s or OCD. The misuse of either of those is related to the conditions, and reflects a kind of partial understanding (and partial misunderstanding) of the condition itself. Changing names won’t help; the same confusions will naturally recur. Education is the only solution.
The misuse of ‘schizophrenia’ is rather a confusion with a completely different condition in a manner that is so strongly rooted as to be self-perpetuating. What reason is there to believe that that confusion will adhere to a new name?
When you educate people about this confusion, you’re not actually educating them about schizophrenia. You’re educating them instead about a linguistic confusion that you could instead just walk away from.
Actually, as one whose profession is treating those persons with developmental disabilities and debilitating mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, the misunderstanding and misuse of terms is a major concern. You should not be speaking for myself or other people who share my profession and to be fair, I won’t speak for the world’s mathematicians, okay?
Besides directly treating the individuals who have been afflicted with schizophrenia and other disorders a portion of my work is devoted to informing the general public as to what these disorders are and how they affect people. It’s going to be a long battle before people’s ideas on the mentally ill change but given time, they will.
After working with with schizophrenics and persons who suffer from other disorders, the jokes at these people’s expense just aren’t that funny. I wouldn’t wish something like this on my worst enemy as schizophrenia is quite often an illness that steals lives from people and takes those people away from their families.
Last summer, I had a protracted temp job as a file clerk. When I was getting established, I discreetly told my supervisor that I have seizure disorder. I assured her that it was highly unlikely that I would have a seizure, but if knock wood I did, this was what people should do and not do.
She mentioned this to her sycophant, except that she said, “Rilch has epilepsy.” Technically, I don’t, since I wasn’t born with this condition, but whatever: she knew I had seizures.
Except that the sycophant was woefully misinformed, and thought epilepsy is diet-dependent (is that the correct term?) in the way that diabetes is. I finally caught on after the third time she asked if it was okay for me to have cake or donuts, and explained the nature of my condition. If knock wood I had had a seizure before I corrected her, she might have tried to give me orange juice. I might have choked, or she might have lost a finger.
It wasn’t up to the supervisor to say “seizure disorder” instead of “epilepsy”. The sycophant is the one who was misinformed about epilepsy; just calling it by a different term wouldn’t have educated her.
Sorry, I know I’m beating this into the ground, but I didn’t see this post before I replied.
It might, if people don’t take the time to explain what the new name means.
“Rilch has seizure disorder.”
“What’s that?”
“Epilepsy.”
“Oh. That means she can’t eat sweets.”
“Adam has glaxotia.”
“What’s that?”
“Schizophrenia.”
“Oh. That means he has a split personality.”
Heck, we’ve already been through this with another term.
“Bobby’s developmentally disabled.” “What’s that mean?” “Retarded.” “Oh. Hey, Bobby’s a retard!”
When you educate people about this confusion, you’re not actually educating them about schizophrenia. You’re educating them instead about a linguistic confusion that you could instead just walk away from. **
[/QUOTE]
The example of the sycophant seems to be relevant to absolutely nothing. This person was in her own little world, with her own individual confusion, shared by nobody else.
Developmentally disabled: sorry, but no go. The disparagement of people who are retarded, under whatever name, follows them around for quite obvious reasons directly related to their actual condition. Because the prejudice is related to the condition, you can’t get out from under it by changing the language.
AFAICT, schizophrenia is unique among disorders in that its name has become solidly identified in the public mind with a different disorder entirely. This is why changing the name has a reasonable chance of being helpful in the case of schizophrenia where it wouldn’t be with any other disorder that I can think of.
The reason I don’t expect this to have much effect is that most Americans don’t knowingly run into schizophrenics - and those that do are likely to be better educated about it as a result.
The gripe in the OP was directed at the ‘I am schizophrenic, and so am I’ stuff that is unthinkingly spouted by the vast majority, most of whom either don’t know a schizophrenic, or are unaware of it if they do. This conversation won’t happen in any of their cases; you can move the condition out from under the name, and let them keep on fucking with the old name.
And even for the rest, the conversation might look like:
“Adam has glaxotia.”
“What’s that?”
“It’s what used to be called schizophrenia.”
“Why’d they change the name?”
“Because everyone kept thinking schizophrenia meant split personality. But it doesn’t.”
“OK, what is glaxotia, or schizophrenia, or wahtever?”
Etcetera.
This post is in response to a scolding I got when I misused ‘schizophrenic’ on another thread. Rather than hijack that thread, I posted here. It may be somewhat misconstrued now that it is taken out of its original context. In general, I concede that I misused it, knowingly as a matter of fact. I was unaware of the level of sensitivity that some people have about that. I’ll be more careful in the future, but here are some of my thoughts on the matter.
All right jjimm, now I’ve read the entire schizophrenia thread. My use of the word was insensitive. But I rather have to agree with RTFirefly. The misuse of the word reminds me of ‘Jello’ and ‘Xerox’. Once their misuse has become so rampant, it’s damned near impossible to undo it.
Tell me, do you ever say, “I’d like some fruit flavored gelatin product.” Probably not because you want the people you are talking to to understand you the first time, so you use the common term even if it is wrong. I understand that this is different because people are involved and feelings get stepped on. But sometimes facilitating communication means being politically incorrect.
Here on the SDMB where ignorance will get you laughed at, I will try to use the term in its proper context. Out in the real world where being pretentious and anal retentive ( don’t start with that one too ) will get you laughed at or beaten, I will most likely continue to use the word in its most commonly (mis)understood useage every now and then. When speaking with educated people I will use proper terminology. When speaking to the average Joe, I sometimes throw in a little vernacular. If someone calls me on my misuse I will congratulate them for their knowledge. If they are offended by my misuse, I will apologize. But my main goal in communicating is to be understood, it’s just ironic that sometimes I have to misspeak to do that. But until everyone on the planet is as well informed as those of us here on the SDMB, sometimes you’ve gotta dumb-down your language.
See, there is a perfect example. Dumb. It means mute. The first six definitions in my dictionary say so. The seventh one means stupid. But how often do you hear it used in its ‘proper’ sense? Are we to stop using it as ‘stupid’ because it may offend a mute person? I say no. Just use mute when you mean unable to talk, and continue to use dumb to mean stupid, because that is what the vast majority of people understand it to mean. Again, successful communication does not always mean being 100% accurate. You have to adjust for the recipient.
Fighting ignorance is a full time job, and unlike Uncle Cecil, I don’t get paid to do it.
I agree with you that they could give that explanation with or without the name change. In fact, I’d say they’re likely to - because if Person A is the one explaining to Person B that Person X has schizophrenia, chances are that A has already had his/her consciousness raised about schizophrenia due to familiarity with X.
But as you’ve noticed, it hasn’t made much of a dent. The problem raised by the OP doesn’t have its source in people’s (relatively rare) experience of schizophrenics; it has to do with the hundreds of millions of Americans who’ve never knowingly encountered a schizophrenic in their lives. How best to deal with their ingrained misdefinition of the word ‘schizophrenia’ is the real issue in this thread.
