Overemphesis on the Label?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Overemphesis on the Label? » Overemphesis on the Label?

Overemphesis on the Label?
Do we focus on the word more so than the event it describes?

Page: 1 2

Overemphesis on the Label?

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/04/09 - 10:10 PM: Subject: Overemphesis on the Label?	#1
Does our perception change simply by changing the terms we use to describe something? Do you think at times we are too focus on how "real" a term is, while ignoring the situation? I think I will try to explain this with some examples example 1: Is ADHD Real? Now, if we know what the symptoms are all along, why does slapping the ADHD label make such a big difference? What are we really looking for when we ask rather or not a label for a set of symptoms is "real"? Why should how "real" the term ADHD affect the strategy you choose (Ritalin vs Conditioning)? Shouldn't a strategy be chosen base on the situation, namely the investment cost vs the total effect/side effect something has? Rather than the term itself being socially accepted as real or not? example 2: Is action X Moral? Why do we care so much about fitting our perceptions into the moral category? How much power does the word moral have? If we already know how many people we help/harm by our action, does it change anything by putting the word moral or immoral on top of it? Is the description of the event less powerful than a single word? example 3: Do other people have consciousness? This seem like a classic example of being too focus with the word. Since the whole argument is run under the assumption that there are no observable differences. Are we not simply using different words to describe the same thing? Thought?
Keep it simple.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/05/09 - 05:13 PM:	#2
I was making note of which words would be better expressed by past tense functionality. I tend to look at terminology as expressionality.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 10/15/09 - 04:54 AM:	#3
123savethewhales wrote: Are we not simply using different words to describe the same thing? We are, though I wish we wouldn't. The more moving parts a vehicle has, the more complicated it is to maintain. I believe we will get there however, through the complexities we will reach simplicity by understanding the nature of our problems. Think of the conversion from Hard Drives that spin magnetic disks and require a read head, to the difference of Solid State storage, it took many complicated years of 'legacy' HDD problems to arive at a solution which is less complicated than its predecessor. So it must also take many complicated years of taxonomy in order to arive at a solution of simplicity. We will get there, we must endure.

e-head
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 86

Posted 10/15/09 - 10:41 AM:	#4
Psychologists do love their labels, and I’m convinced they must have some kind of inferiority complex. Of all the doctors, they are the only ones that have no recourse but to coax you into accepting their labels. Medical doctors can point to the results of definitive tests of actual physical properties. There is, admittedly, some ambiguity with some of their syndromes, and if you are unfortunate enough to suffer some ailment for which there is not a definitive test, you will likely get saddled with the diagnosis of suffering from a MUD, or medically undiagnosed diseases. Psychologists on the other hand have nothing more than the scribbled notes taken during the confessions of their clients (representing careful behavioral observations, or course), or the interpretive results of their psychological tests, which surely, it must be admitted, are influenced by society, culture, and politics (for example, see Foucault, hee hee). I find it curious that you have medical diseases, but we often speak as though you become the psychologists label. You have diabetes but you are bipolar. To be fair, some people say one has bipolar, but we always speak as though you are an addict. I guess this reflects the fact that these diagnosis somehow become deeply embedded traits or characteristics of ours. There is also often the notion that once you have acquired one of these diagnoses, it sticks with you for life. I think ultimately the entire idea of mental illness causes us to careen closely to the hot topic of free will, and makes us wonder if their may not be some limitations on it. Certainly the idea of addiction makes us ponder these things. Levi-Strauss wrote: "The purpose of myth is to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction (an impossible achievement if, as it happens, the contradiction is real)". I think this certainly applies to addiction. Disregarding the ontological state of these labels (and I’m not trying to suggest they are not real), I think they serve two purposes. First, they act as a relief and an explanation, and a refuge from guilt, blame, and shame. Secondly they placate the labeled so they can be more easily manipulated and coaxed. It’s no surprise that once you have acquired one of these labels and told that this is something that you will suffer from for life, you will be far more receptive to therapy and to psychoactive drugs. "It’s okay, it’s not your fault, now get on the bandwagon and take these drugs".

e-head
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 86

Posted 10/15/09 - 10:56 AM:	#5
BTW, on a practical note, my girlfriend suffers from bipolar, and just being with her has mitigated some of my former psychiatric skepticism. I have a term for overemphasizing the label. I call it "fusing". A label can be a refuge from guilt and blame, but it can also be an excuse, and it can hold one back. She can be very defeatist and hopeless at times, and I chalk a lot of it up to "fusing". So, I too advocate a pragmatic approach. If drugs and or therapy are helping, and one has done a thorough investigation into the costs and benefits, then take them. No stigma. The rest is to hard to know for sure. I am convinced they are over-prescribed now, but that is another story. It's for the individual to figure out where the limits of knowing, and more importantly, changing oneself lie, and when it's time to ask for help from Big Pharma.

username303
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 08, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 11/08/09 - 10:08 AM:	#6
I don't know if this sounds dumb or irrelevent, but I noticed people don't really think about the words they say any more. They just use the words they hear and don't think about what they mean. For instance, the way I speak, I phrase things the way most American people of this generation would phrase things. An Indian speaking english may phrase it differently, as someone from France or something. French say "For sure" a lot. Indians use the word "Bamboozle". Little examples are the word another. People don't realize it's An other. Or a lot. It is a lot. the word "lot" means a bunch. So when you say I have a "lot", you are saying you have A NOUN (lot) of it.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1903

Posted 11/08/09 - 11:12 AM:	#7
Most of the time, labels are superfluous. Some of the time, however, the entire meaning is in the name. A boyfriend-girlfriend relationship being one such example. What, factually, makes it the case that two people are boyfriend and girlfriend? That they have a sexual relationship? Some do not have sex; some have sex but just do so casually. That they have feelings for one another? Some don't actually have these feelings; others have them but don't become "involved". It's the label that defines the relationship. But that's not to say the label is without meaning. It's just that the meaning doesn't express some objective factual characteristics (although certain objective factual characteristics are indeed common to instantiations of the label). Another example; names. My name is Michael. But why is this so? Because it's on my birth certificate? On legal documents? Not everyone calls themselves by the "official" name. My name is Michael simply because I call myself Michael. The label is its own meaning.
I am awesome.

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1373

Posted 11/08/09 - 05:59 PM:	#8
123STW wrote: Do you think at times we are too focus on how "real" a term is, while ignoring the situation? You are right of course, but we are obliged by society to be CORRECT in the way we express things so as not to hurt peoples feelings. Does it always work? Would you rather be told that your kid cannot sit down quietly and pay attention in class or that he has ADHD. In the first situation you have no problems being told something you already knew. In the last situation you still end up get the explanation but the doctor or psychologist feels superior and you feel lousy because your kid has this weird decease. The bottom line is always the same whatever words you use, the kid needs treatment. Me, I would rather be told straight and simple. What is easy to see the truth of does not offend.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

magpies
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 06, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 39

Posted 11/08/09 - 06:44 PM:	#9
I often wonder how the world would run for a day if nobody said anything out loud to anyone else for that day. I think that day would be one to remember and I bet crime would drop like a rock.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

Posted 11/08/09 - 07:43 PM:	#10
SIR2U wrote: You are right of course, but we are obliged by society to be CORRECT in the way we express things so as not to hurt peoples feelings. Does it always work? Would you rather be told that your kid cannot sit down quietly and pay attention in class or that he has ADHD. In the first situation you have no problems being told something you already knew. In the last situation you still end up get the explanation but the doctor or psychologist feels superior and you feel lousy because your kid has this weird decease. The bottom line is always the same whatever words you use, the kid needs treatment. Me, I would rather be told straight and simple. What is easy to see the truth of does not offend. While I don't disagree that it is nevertheless a concern for the parents, it caught my attention because a lot of people based their solution to the labeling. That is to say, on average parents are more likely to accept Ritalin if they are told that their child has ADHD, and that ADHD is a real psychological disorder. Conversely speaking, description alone, no matter how precise, will leave a lot more parents wondering rather or not to give the child a pill. In this sense, does the word take up extra meaning of it's own? Can the word itself be somehow more real and more serious than the most precise description?
Keep it simple.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.