Should the field drop the term "abnormal psychology"?

[cara susanna]

Honestly, thank you for starting threads like this one and inviting discussion...it allows those who may have valid opinions that may be inconsistent with the new orthodoxy a place to articulate a 'counterposition' freely without threat of negative consequences...this, in my opinion, is sorely needed and actually increases the validity/credibility of the orthodox opinions in that--if they can survive substantive/real debate, they are strengthened. Sadly, academia has morphed from a place of the free exchange of ideas and vigorous debate to more of a groupthink/conformity/obedience to 'authority' paradigm.

I'm glad! I actually posed this discussion topic here because I had previously seen it discussed in a more academic setting, and was a bit flummoxed by the responses I was seeing. I attributed it to, again, my being primarily a clinician and less involved in academia nowadays.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

My concern about clinical science is that a lot of universities have clinical psych introduction courses that are more about counseling and therapy. That could get confusing.

Not to mention "clinical science" is also being used widely for the PCSAS accreditation model programs..

 

[calimich]

My concern about clinical science is that a lot of universities have clinical psych introduction courses that are more about counseling and therapy. That could get confusing.

yes, this was also a problem where I'm at. Our now-named "psychopathology" class went through an iteration of being called "clinical psychology"...although the class content was essentially a walk through of the DSM. We have hopes of further differentiating and offering both "Descriptive Psychopathology" and "Developmental Psychopathology" courses.

 

[erg923]

While I'm sure none of us tell patients they are "abnormal" within our day-to-day interactions, I DO think the philosophical concept of statistically normative behavior vs not is EXTREMELY important when academically educating anyone interested in psychology/clinical science (practice-oriented or not). I simply do not understand the sensitivity here??? Buck up, folks!

Getting people to understand that their beloved Uncle Ted was, most likely, mentally aberrant vs "quirky" or "having problems in living" is important when educating about psychology/future psychologists/practitioners.

I think the language we use is important too. And I like it. It is short and simple (not overly wordy or perceived as "psychobabble"), doesn't leave doubt about need for services (think "Medical Necessity Criteria"), and it is universally understood by the healthcare system we work in. Changing the common undergrad course name from "Abnormal Psychology" to "Psychopathology" is fine with me. But histrionics about the term "abnormal" is utterly ridiculous.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

My concern about clinical science is that a lot of universities have clinical psych introduction courses that are more about counseling and therapy. That could get confusing.

Agreed. But the levels of the courses should be different (e.g., 200- vs 400-level) and should avoid some of the potential mix ups.

 

[MAClinician]

While we are on the topic of changing labels, I would like to nominate the use of Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED) for children and adolescents as the next one to consider in the behavioral health field.

 

[PsyDr]

I’ve seen a LOT of things that were not pathological, but they sure were not normal.

 

[Ollie123]

Funny, I actually don't know that I have ever seen the term used outside of reference to the generic undergrad psychology course or the journal. Seems more dated than anything. I'm not sure I see much potential for offense (I actually find it "softer" than most other terms), but I think a valid case could be made that given current prevalence rates a lot of what we study/treat is simply not that "abnormal."

Change of name for J Abnorm Psych is probably a better descriptor of current journal contents. Wonder when JCCP will change suit? Have they published a paper on "consulting" in the last decade?

 

[beginner2011]

Funny, I actually don't know that I have ever seen the term used outside of reference to the generic undergrad psychology course or the journal.

But I thought this change would destroy the credibility of the field and undermine our ability as professionals to be reimbursed for our services.

 

[WisNeuro]

But I thought this change would destroy the credibility of the field and undermine our ability as professionals to be reimbursed for our services.

Credibility is an ongoing battle. In terms of reimbursement, the above referenced if similar changes were made to certain disorders, as you have to bill and document for things within the ICD and/or DSM framework to get reimbursed.

 

[PsyDr]

Try to get insurance companies to pay for gender reassignment/confirmation surgery without a gender identity disorder diagnosis. If you don't, insurance says the surgery is cosmetic/not covered.

 

[cara susanna]

But I thought this change would destroy the credibility of the field and undermine our ability as professionals to be reimbursed for our services.

I think those concerns were less about getting rid of abnormal psych specifically and more about getting rid of anything that conveys pathology, like psychopathology.

 

[foreverbull]

Try to get insurance companies to pay for gender reassignment/confirmation surgery without a gender identity disorder diagnosis. If you don't, insurance says the surgery is cosmetic/not covered.

In the DSM-5, the diagnosis changed to gender dysphoria. Coincidentally, which is less stigmatizing than one’s identity being considered pathological since it focuses on the distress.

To the OP’s question, I think about moderation. It’s fine to update a term that was just very out of touch and potentially stigmatizing (as in the diagnosis I just mentioned), but we shouldn’t have to update terms constantly and have several changes/iterations to describe the same thing. I think about how disjointed the body of research would be on any topic if we alter names every decade or so to keep up with the laypublic’s preferences. Students already have difficulty searching for research in my classes because of the different ways phenomena can be described.

We also have to recognize that the lay public just doesn’t understand some of our terms and that will not change because they lack the specialized knowledge of our field.

Some students have told me that psychopathology reminds them of “psycho” but I saw it as an improvement over “abnormal” and also perfectly descriptive in its literal meaning. People don’t go to therapy because they are healthy and functioning well. But then some students don’t like the name “mental illness” or “disorders” either because it sounds stigmatizing. I can’t think of any other term that would accurately capture what the course would be about other than just calling it “DSM-5” which would be confusing to students, anyway since they have never been exposed to the manual prior to taking that class and wouldn’t understand what it means. So I’m more in the psychopathology camp, because its literal meaning is exactly what we work with.

I don’t use the term often, however, especially outside of teaching. Occasionally it’ll come up in a conversation with colleagues. That’s about it.

I do think there are times when we need to update terms, but not everything and not always at the whims of the public. What makes it difficult, though, is that it’s subjective. Psychologists even disagree about which terms are potentially stigmatizing in our field.

 

[Sanman]

In the DSM-5, the diagnosis changed to gender dysphoria. Coincidentally, which is less stigmatizing than one’s identity being considered pathological since it focuses on the distress.

To the OP’s question, I think about moderation. It’s fine to update a term that was just very out of touch and potentially stigmatizing (as in the diagnosis I just mentioned), but we shouldn’t have to update terms constantly and have several changes/iterations to describe the same thing. I think about how disjointed the body of research would be on any topic if we alter names every decade or so to keep up with the laypublic’s preferences. Students already have difficulty searching for research in my classes because of the different ways phenomena can be described.

We also have to recognize that the lay public just doesn’t understand some of our terms and that will not change because they lack the specialized knowledge of our field.

Some students have told me that psychopathology reminds them of “psycho” but I saw it as an improvement over “abnormal” and also perfectly descriptive in its literal meaning. People don’t go to therapy because they are healthy and functioning well. But then some students don’t like the name “mental illness” or “disorders” either because it sounds stigmatizing. I can’t think of any other term that would accurately capture what the course would be about other than just calling it “DSM-5” which would be confusing to students, anyway since they have never been exposed to the manual prior to taking that class and wouldn’t understand what it means. So I’m more in the psychopathology camp, because its literal meaning is exactly what we work with.

I don’t use the term often, however, especially outside of teaching. Occasionally it’ll come up in a conversation with colleagues. That’s about it.

I do think there are times when we need to update terms, but not everything and not always at the whims of the public. What makes it difficult, though, is that it’s subjective. Psychologists even disagree about which terms are potentially stigmatizing in our field.

Back when I was a young, single graduate student and actually went to places to meet people and was willing to tell them what I did, I had at least two young women in bars believe that being a psychologist meant I was psychic and could read their minds. I had one cute girl at a party who was flirting with me (a psychology undergrad) literally stop talking to me and avoid me the rest of the evening because she thought I was going to psychoanalyze her. Moral of the story...some people are just stupid and perhaps we need not cater to the lowest common denominator just because it is popular opinion.

I am fine with changing certain terms like GID to gender dysphoria as it better reflects the distress as stated. However, changing words in order to reduce stigma can also have toe effect of normalizing behavior that needs to be addressed. Does changing substance abuse to substance use disorder make a person think that they need to simply moderate rather than stop using dangerous substances? I mean they aren't abusing cocaine , opioids, and heroin. They are just using it incorrectly. maybe just on Saturday and Sunday then.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Back when I was a young, single graduate student and actually went to places to meet people and was willing to tell them what I did. I had at least two young women in bars believe that being a psychologist meant I was psychic and could read their minds. I had one cute girl at a party who was flirting with me (a psychology undergrad) literally stop talking to me and avoid me the rest of the evening because she thought I was going to psychoanalyze her. Moral of the story...some people are just stupid and perhaps we need not cater to the lowest common denominator just because it is popular opinion.

I am fine with changing certain terms like GID to gender dysphoria as it better reflects the distress as stated. However, changing words in order to reduce stigma can also have toe effect of normalizing behavior that needs to be addressed. Does changing substance abuse to substance use disorder make a person think that they need to simply moderate rather than stop using dangerous substances? I mean they aren't abusing cocaine , opioids, and heroin. They are just using it incorrectly. maybe just on Saturday and Sunday then.

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words..."

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I have mentioned this before, I had a student that got upset when I reviewed the efficacy of SSRIs and the debunked Chemical Imbalance Theory of depression. Using anecdotal, loudest voice opinions on what is "good/bad" or more importantly stigmatizing/harmful is not an effective method. Perhaps we can collect some data in a less bias manner and analyze it to see whether certain terms are indeed stigmatizing for people? One could only hope to dream.

My support for changing the term is purely b/c it is outdated rather than potentially stigmatizing. Some people's lack of knowledge between psychopath/psychic/psychologist/psychopathology is very low on my priority list (again, that is just me).

 

[ClinicalABA]

.. Moral of the story...some people are just stupid and perhaps we need not cater to the lowest common denominator just because it is popular opinion.

You can't entirely blame that one on an ignorant public. You've been doing this long enough where I'm sure you've encountered many a psychologist who feels they "have a gift" for paying attention an figuring things out. I remember firstvdaybofvgrad school, where you go around the table and say why you're pursuing clinical psych. The modal response included something about some innate, almost mystical ability to sense and understand "issues" in others (and I went to a Boulder model program with a strong research component). I, on the other hand, answered honestly- "I have no other marketable skills."

 

[Sanman]

You can't entirely blame that one on an ignorant public. You've been doing this long enough where I'm sure you've encountered many a psychologist who feels they "have a gift" for paying attention an figuring things out. I remember firstvdaybofvgrad school, where you go around the table and say why you're pursuing clinical psych. The modal response included something about some innate, almost mystical ability to sense and understand "issues" in others (and I went to a Boulder model program with a strong research component). I, on the other hand, answered honestly- "I have no other marketable skills."

Your cohort was different from mine. I had a few "I want to help people" responses and a few northeast folks that were not interested in psychodynamic/psychoanalytic stuff and wanted more CBT focused training. I was just a neuroscience nerd that did not want to be stuck doing only research and opted for a more clinical path. I was also interested in the applications of neural networks to artificial intelligence....oh where I could have been had I opted for that path 15- 20 years ago.

 

[WisNeuro]

Your cohort was different from mine. I had a few "I want to help people" responses and a few northeast folks that were not interested in psychodynamic/psychoanalytic stuff and wanted more CBT focused training. I was just a neuroscience nerd that did not want to be stuck doing only research and opted for a more clinical path. I was also interested in the applications of neural networks to artificial intelligence....oh where I could have been had I opted for that path 15- 20 years ago.

The "I want to help people" response in why people wanted to get into grad school was actually a negative during the interview if it wasn't followed up by anything of real substance in my lab. It's such a cliche, unimaginative answer. We were also a neuroscience oriented lab, so that may also skew why we didn't much care for that response.

 

[Sanman]

The "I want to help people" response in why people wanted to get into grad school was actually a negative during the interview if it wasn't followed up by anything of real substance in my lab. It's such a cliche, unimaginative answer. We were also a neuroscience oriented lab, so that may also skew why we didn't much care for that response.

Yeah, it was not simply saying "I want to help people", but rather the general do-gooder attitude with requisite clinical experiences and research interests. Again, this was after we were accepted in the program and all met each other. I found most others were more focused on being in a helping profession or much more into specific schools of therapy/ CBT theory than I .

This was, is, and always will be a job to me, albeit one I enjoy. The economics need to make sense. For example, I recall being the only member of my cohort with familiar with the ballpark salary numbers for the different areas of practice and practice settings.

 

[ccool]

I think that with conversations related to the ubiquity and insidiousness of systems and matrices of domination (Hill Collins) becoming more main mainstream, it follows that more work is going in to critiquing ideas of what is and isnt “normal” or even “typical” and what the implications of that are.

I think that it’s more than abnormal psychology being an outdated term. Rather I think there is something important to consider about what the value judgements embedded in the idea of normal mean. Just because something is normal or typical.. happens often or is expected.. doesn’t mean it is “good”. And so the converse isn’t true either. Furthermore, we must consider that the foundations of much psychological science is based on middle-class white samples.

As a field, we have only pretty recently begun considering the ways that middle-class white is not some norm or standard that can define typical (and the laden value judgements) for all people or that deviations from their phenomenology are not inherently maladjustment or dysfunction or what have you. Or for a result with positive implications compared to the standard sample, some surprise that “the other” has the capacity for adaptive functioning or something. Much work across a range of phenomena has been going in to examining whether long-held ideas of expected behavior, expected, “normal” developmental trajectories, or even simply measurement models and assessment tools, that have been established in particular populations hold similarly for different populations.

I think that the statistical concept of normality is different from the use of the word normal to describe behavior or etiologies and imply maladjustment. I’m sure we all learned the three (or four) D’s of psychopathology during undergrad... that symptomology must be deviant, distressing, dysfunctional (and dangerous). Deviance from the norm (I’m using this statistically) is not enough.

I agree that psychopathology is much more accurate for what we mean and what we do. Though there may be differences in the connotation of the word depending on who you are and your experiences, the denotation is precisely what we mean, even at the etymological level - the study of soul pain/suffering. And clinical psychology then as a field that is dedicated to the reduction and relief of psychopathology and related phenomenon.

 

[MCParent]

I don’t assess or treat “soul pain.”

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I don’t assess or treat “soul pain.”

You must be insufficiently 'awakened' to the meta-realities of the planes beyond wherein there is no 'normal' or 'normative'...no 'pathology', only 'individualized expression of uniqueness,' and no 'good' or 'bad', only floating barely above the surface of an infinite ocean surrounded--omni-directionally--by endless horizions of possibility...completely unmoored from any stable reference point (of values, of facts, even of agreed-upon methods of investigation) or fixed definitions of terms.
/sarcasm

I prefer to continue to 'slumber' within the context of traditional (an ugly word these days, by connotation, I admit) approaches to epistemology, philosophy of science, and clinical psychology--at least as a baseline position.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t assess or treat “soul pain.”

I hear that the only treatment for soul pain is Soul Train. Of course, syndicated episodes work fine.

 

[foreverbull]

I think that with conversations related to the ubiquity and insidiousness of systems and matrices of domination (Hill Collins) becoming more main mainstream, it follows that more work is going in to critiquing ideas of what is and isnt “normal” or even “typical” and what the implications of that are.

I think that it’s more than abnormal psychology being an outdated term. Rather I think there is something important to consider about what the value judgements embedded in the idea of normal mean. Just because something is normal or typical.. happens often or is expected.. doesn’t mean it is “good”. And so the converse isn’t true either. Furthermore, we must consider that the foundations of much psychological science is based on middle-class white samples.

As a field, we have only pretty recently begun considering the ways that middle-class white is not some norm or standard that can define typical (and the laden value judgements) for all people or that deviations from their phenomenology are not inherently maladjustment or dysfunction or what have you. Or for a result with positive implications compared to the standard sample, some surprise that “the other” has the capacity for adaptive functioning or something. Much work across a range of phenomena has been going in to examining whether long-held ideas of expected behavior, expected, “normal” developmental trajectories, or even simply measurement models and assessment tools, that have been established in particular populations hold similarly for different populations.

I think that the statistical concept of normality is different from the use of the word normal to describe behavior or etiologies and imply maladjustment. I’m sure we all learned the three (or four) D’s of psychopathology during undergrad... that symptomology must be deviant, distressing, dysfunctional (and dangerous). Deviance from the norm (I’m using this statistically) is not enough.

I agree that psychopathology is much more accurate for what we mean and what we do. Though there may be differences in the connotation of the word depending on who you are and your experiences, the denotation is precisely what we mean, even at the etymological level - the study of soul pain/suffering. And clinical psychology then as a field that is dedicated to the reduction and relief of psychopathology and related phenomenon.

Yes, the idea of “normality” can be questioned when it’s referring only to a certain population. I also think about how just over half of folks will fit criteria for a mental illness during their lifetime, so if it is actually more “normal” to be diagnosable at some point with something rather than not, how applicable is that label?

If you want to go even farther, Fritz Perls posited that something was wrong with society rather than the individual (feminist theory also says as much, although gestalt and feminist theory have different ideas about why that is). Some folks from anthropological backgrounds would probably examine our culture further to determine why mental illness is happening at the societal level. In some circles, there are folks who think diseases of the mind are mostly actually symptom sets of diseases of society, going all the way back to the start of agriculture and class systems. Most foraging peoples didn’t/don’t subjugate others or have certain members hoarding resources while others had/have little because they shared resources instead. Some ecological anthropologists believe that this caused a shift in well-being/happiness once a more rigid class system started to emerge with agriculture/sedentary lives (“civilization”) and “work” became the norm and resources weren’t shared as equally in the group. (One example from my former anthropology professor: a foraging group in subsaharan Africa was asked how many hours they had to “work” to collect food/water in a very “inhospitable” environment in the desert in which they lived. The answer was ~10 hours per week. The rest of the time they socialized, etc. Yet our dominant culture narrative is that foraging peoples are inferior, uncivilized, unhappy, toiling away to survive, and with short lives, etc.).

Food for thought. Anthropology offers a completely different perspective on the state of mental health and its connection to our historical trajectory.

 

[calimich]

I don’t assess or treat “soul pain.”

What about suffering?

 

[ccool]

Yes, the idea of “normality” can be questioned when it’s referring only to a certain population. I also think about how just over half of folks will fit criteria for a mental illness during their lifetime, so if it is actually more “normal” to be diagnosable at some point with something rather than not, how applicable is that label?

If you want to go even farther, Fritz Perls posited that something was wrong with society rather than the individual (feminist theory also says as much, although gestalt and feminist theory have different ideas about why that is). Some folks from anthropological backgrounds would probably examine our culture further to determine why mental illness is happening at the societal level. In some circles, there are folks who think diseases of the mind are mostly actually symptom sets of diseases of society, going all the way back to the start of agriculture and class systems. Most foraging peoples didn’t/don’t subjugate others or have certain members hoarding resources while others had/have little because they shared resources instead. Some ecological anthropologists believe that this caused a shift in well-being/happiness once a more rigid class system started to emerge with agriculture/sedentary lives (“civilization”) and “work” became the norm and resources weren’t shared as equally in the group. (One example from my former anthropology professor: a foraging group in subsaharan Africa was asked how many hours they had to “work” to collect food/water in a very “inhospitable” environment in the desert in which they lived. The answer was ~10 hours per week. The rest of the time they socialized, etc. Yet our dominant culture narrative is that foraging peoples are inferior, uncivilized, unhappy, toiling away to survive, and with short lives, etc.).

Food for thought. Anthropology offers a completely different perspective on the state of mental health and its connection to our historical trajectory.

Right, precisely. The frame matters. If that group you cited was deemed the standard to which all others were compared and that their way of living was deemed good or whatever value because they are the standard, then groups or societies who deviate significantly from them would be deemed bad and worthy of intervention.

but even this brings back the other problem with embedding value into the idea of normality. Because even when we can all accept the frame we’re using, there’s still the question of positive deviations. Abnormal can’t be interchangeable with maladjustment, needs treatment, psychopathology, etc., when there are abnormalities or deviations in the positive (math, not value) direction as well.

For a benign but cheeky example, say we want to examine the extent to which people on a forum believe good and bad are objective v subjective values and we find that responses are normally distributed with 95% of people falling within two standard deviations of the mean. What of the remaining 2.2% on each side, believing that good and bad are almost completely objective or good and bad are almost completely subjective? They are both abnormal, a significant deviation, but which is ‘wrong’ or a problem and needs intervention? Both? Ok, but why do they need intervention? because they differ from the norm? Just one? Ok, but how do you choose? perhaps you choose the one that creates the most problems for them where they are operating (i.e. in the forum)? But who is defining what is or isn’t problematic..to themselves..to the forum..to those who fall within the norm, those within the norm or those who deviate? Or maybe choose those who find their deviation from the forum norm distressing? And then here, is the intervention about changing their belief to fit the norm or decreasing their distress about their deviation? Maybe it’s some combination of all or none of these considerations. And surely the answer changes based on the phenomenon at hand. Even still though, there is the underlying assumption that what is normal is what is “true” and thus aspirational.

it seems to me that it isn’t a problem to differ from the norm unless it is. And to the quoted point above, definition of difference and problem is a function of the frame we are using. I’m not saying not to use any frame. That is not possible given that we live in a society and that there are rules and norms we are all expected to follow lest some consequence, regardless of our personal agreement, so we can all function together despite our differences. Problems in living and functioning in the context of society are very real and need to be addressed to decrease suffering and increase people’s potential to pursue health and life satisfaction. However, I think important questions still remain as to what is actually the problem and thus what needs intervention. The rules and norms of the society or frame in which one exists? The thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that deviate from the norms that exist within that frame? Both? Else?

this again is why I like psychopathology because it makes a discrimination between healthy and functioning vs not or articulates a spectrum of healthy/psychopathology (see systems like HiTOP) but not a value judgement related to normal=good=functional=health=aspirational and deviations=bad=dysfunctional=sickness=needs changing. It is also agnostic to frame so psychologists’ work is not limited to examining and changing individuals to better fit within the thoughts, behaviors, feelings that have been identified as normal within environments/society, but also to examining and changing environments/society to better fit individuals and our differences, “normal” or not.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Right, precisely. The frame matters. If that group you cited was deemed the standard to which all others were compared and that their way of living was deemed good or whatever value because they are the standard, then groups or societies who deviate significantly from them would be deemed bad and worthy of intervention.

but even this brings back the other problem with embedding value into the idea of normality. Because even when we can all accept the frame we’re using, there’s still the question of positive deviations. Abnormal can’t be interchangeable with maladjustment, needs treatment, psychopathology, etc., when there are abnormalities or deviations in the positive (math, not value) direction as well.

For a benign but cheeky example, say we want to examine the extent to which people on a forum believe good and bad are objective v subjective values and we find that responses are normally distributed with 95% of people falling within two standard deviations of the mean. What of the remaining 2.2% on each side, believing that good and bad are almost completely objective or good and bad are almost completely subjective? They are both abnormal, a significant deviation, but which is ‘wrong’ or a problem and needs intervention? Both? Ok, but why do they need intervention? because they differ from the norm? Just one? Ok, but how do you choose? perhaps you choose the one that creates the most problems for them where they are operating (i.e. in the forum)? But who is defining what is or isn’t problematic..to themselves..to the forum..to those who fall within the norm, those within the norm or those who deviate? Or maybe choose those who find their deviation from the forum norm distressing? And then here, is the intervention about changing their belief to fit the norm or decreasing their distress about their deviation? Maybe it’s some combination of all or none of these considerations. And surely the answer changes based on the phenomenon at hand. Even still though, there is the underlying assumption that what is normal is what is “true” and thus aspirational.

it seems to me that it isn’t a problem to differ from the norm unless it is. And to the quoted point above, definition of difference and problem is a function of the frame we are using. I’m not saying not to use any frame. That is not possible given that we live in a society and that there are rules and norms we are all expected to follow lest some consequence, regardless of our personal agreement, so we can all function together despite our differences. Problems in living and functioning in the context of society are very real and need to be addressed to decrease suffering and increase people’s potential to pursue health and life satisfaction. However, I think important questions still remain as to what is actually the problem and thus what needs intervention. The rules and norms of the society or frame in which one exists? The thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that deviate from the norms that exist within that frame? Both? Else?

this again is why I like psychopathology because it makes a discrimination between healthy and functioning vs not or articulates a spectrum of healthy/psychopathology (see systems like HiTOP) but not a value judgement related to normal=good=functional=health=aspirational and deviations=bad=dysfunctional=sickness=needs changing. It is also agnostic to frame so psychologists’ work is not limited to examining and changing individuals to better fit within the thoughts, behaviors, feelings that have been identified as normal within environments/society, but also to examining and changing environments/society to better fit individuals and our differences, “normal” or not.

Within the context of psychotherapy, it is ultimately the client who decides what is 'normal/abnormal,' 'good/bad,' or 'functional/dysfunctional' and these questions become empirical questions applied to the individual client by him/herself across time. I think that this is a major difference in focus between academicians and practicing clinicians which leads to their differing perspectives on these philosophical issues.

As a therapist, I have to keep an open mind regarding all of this (e.g., what is actually normal/abnormal, good/bad, or functional/dysfunctional for this particular client) and--undoubtedly, my initial hypotheses (case formulation-wise) are heavily influenced (in some ways biased, in some ways accurate) by my particular learning history and experiences as an individual (and, of course, race/sex/class variables come into play)).

However, the good news is that there actually IS an objective reality out there to a meaningful extent and it is THIS REALITY that we can expect to do the 'heavy lifting,' so to speak to correct any assumptive errors that I have made (and the client has made) regarding which behaviors are actually normal/abnormal, good/bad, or functional/dysfunctional for that individual client. This occurs across time within the therapy relationship as the client and therapist strive to honestly communicate and honestly process the results of behavioral experiments, alternative interpretation of events, and efforts at behavior change.

 

[Ollie123]

ccool's response really gets at one of the core things that bugged me about the term...that "abnormal" exclusively focused on the negative end of the spectrum. I'm unaware of an abnormal psychology textbook that includes discussion of high IQ, low neuroticism, grit, resilience, etc. All things that would be considered abnormal psychology if we applied a colloquial definition of abnormal but which weren't major topics of study in the early 1900s or whenever the term originated (I think that's just when the journal emerged if memory serves). I think this is part of what makes me feel the term is outdated.

Personally, I think normal/abnormal connotes more of a continuum than a term like psychopathology which is why I indicated I find it a bit "softer" above and believe it has some appeal. Such a conceptualization also seems to fit better with current evidence albeit we have a long ways to go before having a functional fully-dimensional model of psychopathology and a VERY long way to go before such a model can readily be integrated into existing biomedical infrastructure. I am semi-optimistic that increased adoption of VBC by payers will at least open doors to moving in that direction though, but we're still talking about a timeline measured in decades and not years.

 

[calimich]

ccool's response really gets at one of the core things that bugged me about the term...that "abnormal" exclusively focused on the negative end of the spectrum. I'm unaware of an abnormal psychology textbook that includes discussion of high IQ, low neuroticism, grit, resilience, etc. All things that would be considered abnormal psychology if we applied a colloquial definition of abnormal...

to this point, and another reason I was drawn to accept a faculty position at this particular institution, we have a course -- "The Exceptional Individual" -- which attempts to address both ends of the "deviations from normality" spectrum

 

[ccool]

Within the context of psychotherapy, it is ultimately the client who decides what is 'normal/abnormal,' 'good/bad,' or 'functional/dysfunctional' and these questions become empirical questions applied to the individual client by him/herself across time. I think that this is a major difference in focus between academicians and practicing clinicians which leads to their differing perspectives on these philosophical issues.

As a therapist, I have to keep an open mind regarding all of this (e.g., what is actually normal/abnormal, good/bad, or functional/dysfunctional for this particular client) and--undoubtedly, my initial hypotheses (case formulation-wise) are heavily influenced (in some ways biased, in some ways accurate) by my particular learning history and experiences as an individual (and, of course, race/sex/class variables come into play)).

However, the good news is that there actually IS an objective reality out there to a meaningful extent and it is THIS REALITY that we can expect to do the 'heavy lifting,' so to speak to correct any assumptive errors that I have made (and the client has made) regarding which behaviors are actually normal/abnormal, good/bad, or functional/dysfunctional for that individual client. This occurs across time within the therapy relationship as the client and therapist strive to honestly communicate and honestly process the results of behavioral experiments, alternative interpretation of events, and efforts at behavior change.

I agree with this entirely.

So then to me, treating or studying psychopathology is much less about what is or isn’t normal and working towards becoming more normal or less abnormal as a goal, especially considering that the value let alone the content of that differs based on who you ask and the contexts of interest. Rather, it seems much more about what is or isn’t desired and working towards increasing desired thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and decreasing undesired ones.. while still attending to the nuances of defining that based on who you ask and the contexts of interest, given what we know and are continuing to learn about outcomes and implications of certain thoughts, feelings, behavior.

 

[PsyDr]

I agree with this entirely.

So then to me, treating or studying psychopathology is much less about what is or isn’t normal and working towards becoming more normal or less abnormal as a goal, especially considering that the value let alone the content of that differs based on who you ask and the contexts of interest. Rather, it seems much more about what is or isn’t desired and working towards increasing desired thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and decreasing undesired ones.. while still attending to the nuances of defining that based on who you ask and the contexts of interest, given what we know and are continuing to learn about outcomes and implications of certain thoughts, feelings, behavior.

This is a lay understanding of the matter that ignores ego syntonic pathologies. You do not treat delusions, mania, dementia, narcissistic personality disorder, or schizophrenia by increasing desired thoughts. It is called collusion if you do.

 

[ccool]

This is a lay understanding of the matter that ignores ego syntonic pathologies. You do not treat delusions, mania, dementia, narcissistic personality disorder, or schizophrenia by increasing desired thoughts. It is called collusion if you do.

No, the whole point is that our determination of what is desired (or “normal”) is not and cannot be based exclusively upon the decree of the patient, therapist/researcher, or society/environment. I really like the way @Fan_of_Meehl lays this out in the above post.

Furthermore, part of the study of psychopathology is empirically examining predictors, outcomes, trajectories, and other correlates so that, as mentioned, we have a greater understanding of the implications of phenomena at hand, and we can be better educated about what is more and less desired thoughts, feelings, behavior for whom under what contexts for what goals.

 

[PsyDr]

No, the whole point is that our determination of what is desired (or “normal”) is not and cannot be based exclusively upon the decree of the patient, therapist/researcher, or society/environment. I really like the way @Fan_of_Meehl lays this out in the above post.

Furthermore, part of the study of psychopathology is empirically examining predictors, outcomes, trajectories, and other correlates so that, as mentioned, we have a greater understanding of the implications of phenomena at hand, and we can be better educated about what is more and less desired thoughts, feelings, behavior for whom under what contexts for what goals.

We? Are you a licensed clinician or grad student?

 

[Sanman]

No, the whole point is that our determination of what is desired (or “normal”) is not and cannot be based exclusively upon the decree of the patient, therapist/researcher, or society/environment. I really like the way @Fan_of_Meehl lays this out in the above post.

Furthermore, part of the study of psychopathology is empirically examining predictors, outcomes, trajectories, and other correlates so that, as mentioned, we have a greater understanding of the implications of phenomena at hand, and we can be better educated about what is more and less desired thoughts, feelings, behavior for whom under what contexts for what goals.

It really is not about normal/abnormal at all. What we all do in treatment is turning "dysfunctional" behaviors into functional behaviors and what is functional will always vary by context.

 

[foreverbull]

We? Are you a licensed clinician?

In the same post you quoted, the poster discussed researchers and therapists, so to assume that is what was meant seems like a stretch.

And why does it matter?

 

[foreverbull]

Not sure if this is getting off topic, but I appreciate the biopsychosocial model, because it is flexible in identifying causes of client problems--either largely caused by genetics, environment/culture, psychological/intrapsychic factors, or a combination of 2 or 3. I think good clinicians become very adept at determining the balance of these factors when thinking about psychopathology and guiding treatment.

Ultimately, I think therapy helps people adapt—sometimes within the context of a maladaptive culture, and sometimes what’s maladaptive is the beliefs/behaviors of the client, or a combination. I tend to see some severe or chronic mental illnesses as more genetic in basis (and if I recall correctly, studies bear this out for the heritability of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, among others), although there’s something to be said for the diathesis-stress model/epigenetics. Sometimes medication will still be the first line of treatment for some disorders, even though it isn’t a perfect solution. Medication can be life-changing for some, and have zero effect (or completely adverse effect) on others, as I’ve seen in practice.

But since that isn’t our job (other than perhaps to suggest a referral at times), we help clients adapt in whatever ways we can given what we know—whether that’s shedding societal messages, behavioral changes, allowing feelings, working on thoughts/emotions/interpersonal dynamics, etc. Buddhism talks about shedding beliefs and messages to get to a place of presence rather than learning, per se—it’s more about UNlearning what we’ve accumulated over time. I’ve always liked that philosophy when considering psychopathology. It doesn’t apply to every case or disorder, but I think that philosophical piece is useful in many cases, particularly with beliefs/judgments that are internalized (my CBT is showing—but moreso my ACT, to offer a terrible pun).

 

[futureapppsy2]

Ironically, in rehab psych and in the broader disability community, there's been a strong push AWAY from using euphemisms and towards just calling disabled people just that. Here's an article that was published on it and actually won an award for best article published in the journal that year:

Andrews, E. E., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Mona, L. R., Lund, E. M., Pilarski, C. R., & Balter, R. (2019). #SaytheWord: A disability culture commentary on the erasure of “disability”. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000258

@Ollie123 , to your point about resilience, there's been some pushback of late about the idea of resilience being used as an excuse to continue to treat people in harmful ways or not address social change, and tbh, I kind of agree with that criticism. Resilience is well and good, but treating people horribly and then blaming them for not being resilient is not.

 

[Ollie123]

@Ollie123 , to your point about resilience, there's been some pushback of late about the idea of resilience being used as an excuse to continue to treat people in harmful ways or not address social change, and tbh, I kind of agree with that criticism. Resilience is well and good, but treating -people horrobly and then blaming them for not being resilient is not.

Oh, 100% agreed. My point was strictly that resilience is certainly a positive trait (at least in terms of the functioning of a given individual) but not something one would typically cover extensively in abnormal psychology despite extreme resilience being relatively "abnormal."

I can't say I've seen scientific articles advocating that we don't need to make systemic changes, we just need to build people's resilience to societal dysfunction though no doubt that attitude is pervasive in certain *ahem* "political circles." I'd hope that doesn't turn into pushback against the scientific study of resilience as a whole, which I think is incredibly important for us to understand if we're truly going to get a grasp on psychopathology as a whole.

 

[ccool]

We? Are you a licensed clinician or grad student?

Lol, use the most basic of ad homs to attempt to undermine me and what I said by proxy, rather than actually address the content of what I said. I’d suggesting trying a more subtle or obscure tactic. It might be more effective.

Actually, by we, I meant all people. And certainly the only people who might bristle at all people having increased education and access to knowledge about the implications of various phenomena in various contexts for various people and skills for decreasing suffering and increasing health and life satisfaction would be patronizing elitists who believe that knowledge and skills are only for a select few to know and that all other people must lay in waiting to be bestowed the pleasure of their gifts.

in addendum: I’m not saying that you are a patronizing elitist. I don’t know anything about you or your thoughts or feelings. There is absolutely no way that I could make that judgement. I’m simply making an observation.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Oh, 100% agreed. My point was strictly that resilience is certainly a positive trait (at least in terms of the functioning of a given individual) but not something one would typically cover extensively in abnormal psychology despite extreme resilience being relatively "abnormal."

I can't say I've seen scientific articles advocating that we don't need to make systemic changes, we just need to build people's resilience to societal dysfunction though no doubt that attitude is pervasive in certain *ahem* "political circles." I'd hope that doesn't turn into pushback against the scientific study of resilience as a whole, which I think is incredibly important for us to understand if we're truly going to get a grasp on psychopathology as a whole.

On a personal level, I recently came to terms with the strong likelihood that I experienced significant ableism on the academic job market, because I was extremely well-qualified but struggled immensely to get a TT job, only to be pushed towards early tenure pretty much as soon as I started this job. Thinking of everything that happened as “my fault” for not being a good enough academic screwed with my head, and owning the ableism likely involved really helped me personally. I told a (White, straight, cisgender, non-disabled, wealthy) mentor this, expecting him to be happy for me. Instead, he got furious and told me that academia is perfect meritocracy and I was being a “victim.” I was taken aback.

 

[ccool]

On a personal level, I recently came to terms with the strong likelihood that I experienced significant ableism on the academic job market, because I was extremely well-qualified but struggled immensely to get a TT job, only to be pushed towards early tenure pretty much as soon as I started this job. Thinking of everything that happened as “my fault” for not being a good enough academic screwed with my head, and owning the ableism likely involved really helped me personally. I told a (White, straight, cisgender, non-disabled, wealthy) mentor this, expecting him to be happy for me. Instead, he got furious and told me that academia is perfect meritocracy and I was being a “victim.” I was taken aback.

I couldn’t decide which emoji to use to respond - hugs, anger, like, love, rolls eyes - so I’m commenting instead.

I’m so happy for you that you’ve reached the point in your journey where you’re not only working to stop internalizing the violence (I’m using it again because I stand by it lol) proffered against you but you’re being explicit about it, including to people who knowingly or not have engaged in this sort of behavior with you or others.

I’m so angry (and unsurprised) that these have been your experiences and that you will have to continue sloughing through others’ limited self-awareness and defensiveness to survive... let alone think about all you must do in order to thrive. As a person who blatantly (and not) exists in many structural locations that are non-dominant and subjugated by others and who relatedly holds many non-dominant and subjugated ideas, I relate very strongly to the experiences you graciously share and to the experiences of all people whose ability to pursue themselves are dismissed, denied, undermined, or placed with significant and unjust barriers etc. for no reason other than the passive and active propagation of what was once made up, systems of oppression. Nothing is stopping equity and justice from being a reality but ongoing actions that are upholding the systems.

I have found so much value in disability studies and think it is really paving the way within academia on not only critical analysis but praxis. I’m thinking now of one of my favorite Audre Lorde quotes from her essay, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,”

Those of us who stand outside the circle of this society's definition of acceptable women; those of us who have been forged in the crucibles of difference -- those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are Black, who are older -- know that survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master's house as their only source of support.

Whether you keep Lorde’s frame as women ie supposed fellows or peers, or expand to all people, I think it still applies.

Thanks always for you.

 

[PsyDr]

Lol, use the most basic of ad homs to attempt to undermine me and what I said by proxy, rather than actually address the content of what I said. I’d suggesting trying a more subtle or obscure tactic. It might be more effective.

Actually, by we, I meant all people. And certainly the only people who might bristle at all people having increased education and access to knowledge about the implications of various phenomena in various contexts for various people and skills for decreasing suffering and increasing health and life satisfaction would be patronizing elitists who believe that knowledge and skills are only for a select few to know and that all other people must lay in waiting to be bestowed the pleasure of their gifts.

in addendum: I’m not saying that you are a patronizing elitist. I don’t know anything about you or your thoughts or feelings. There is absolutely no way that I could make that judgement. I’m simply making an observation.

I see. Asked a question, come back with an insult. But it's not an ad hominem when you do it.

 

[Shiori]

On a personal level, I recently came to terms with the strong likelihood that I experienced significant ableism on the academic job market, because I was extremely well-qualified but struggled immensely to get a TT job, only to be pushed towards early tenure pretty much as soon as I started this job. Thinking of everything that happened as “my fault” for not being a good enough academic screwed with my head, and owning the ableism likely involved really helped me personally. I told a (White, straight, cisgender, non-disabled, wealthy) mentor this, expecting him to be happy for me. Instead, he got furious and told me that academia is perfect meritocracy and I was being a “victim.” I was taken aback.

I'm sad that happened, but I'm glad you were able to stick with it! It can be really disorienting to explain what you're experiencing and have someone important to you completely invalidate it. It seems like something more folks in psychology would excel at avoiding, but I think the skills we learn as clinicians make us very good at asking "are you sure that's really what happened?" in ways that are damaging. I've been running across more articles that explore interactions between mentors/supervisors and trainees. I'm hoping they'll shed more light on ways to productively challenge budding clinicians without perpetuating unhelpful hardship because of their own stuff. Congrats on the TT job!

 

[Sanman]

On a personal level, I recently came to terms with the strong likelihood that I experienced significant ableism on the academic job market, because I was extremely well-qualified but struggled immensely to get a TT job, only to be pushed towards early tenure pretty much as soon as I started this job. Thinking of everything that happened as “my fault” for not being a good enough academic screwed with my head, and owning the ableism likely involved really helped me personally. I told a (White, straight, cisgender, non-disabled, wealthy) mentor this, expecting him to be happy for me. Instead, he got furious and told me that academia is perfect meritocracy and I was being a “victim.” I was taken aback.

I'm sad that happened, but I'm glad you were able to stick with it! It can be really disorienting to explain what you're experiencing and have someone important to you completely invalidate it. It seems like something more folks in psychology would excel at avoiding, but I think the skills we learn as clinicians make us very good at asking "are you sure that's really what happened?" in ways that are damaging. I've been running across more articles that explore interactions between mentors/supervisors and trainees. I'm hoping they'll shed more light on ways to productively challenge budding clinicians without perpetuating unhelpful hardship because of their own stuff. Congrats on the TT job!

You know, it is funny @futureapppsy2, the only thing that surprises me about your revelation is that you did not have it sooner. However, at the end of the day, I am not sure how much it matters. Having been a minority in a number of ways my whole life, I quickly learned that I needed cater to majority culture as much as I could because it had no interest in catering to me. The truth is that any setting like academia these days produces so many more qualified candidates than there are jobs that meritocracy gets thrown out the window. If you have two, five, ten good candidates, then how do you choose? Often that comes down to implicit bias. Are you choosing the person different than you or the one that is similar and will "fit in" around the dept, office, etc. I imagine many choose those that are most like them (because, hey, they are successful and this person thinks, acts, looks, the same as them). This puts those that are different at a disadvantage and likely always will. People are built to utilize shortcuts in their thinking and being a psychologist does not make one immune to bias. At the end of the say, bias can work for or against us. There is no way to be completely fair.

Funny enough, I published something related to this discussion to this early in my career and find it interesting to see something wrote over a decade ago be more relevant today than it was when I wrote about it. Anyway, I will end this here before I get anymore off topic.

 

[ccool]

I see. Asked a question, come back with an insult. But it's not an ad hominem when you do it.

I am extremely happy to stand corrected and apologize for any error on my part.

//Edit: However, I’m unclear where an error lies? Do you mind telling me what your intention was in asking me whether I am a licensed clinician or graduate student? What would it answer?

Additionally, // for the sake of mutual understanding, could you clarify how knowing whether I am a licensed clinician or whether I am a graduate student, despite the fact that they are not mutually exclusive, was relevant to anything I said? Someone else asked that too and you didn’t respond.

 

[PsyDr]

I am extremely happy to stand corrected and apologize for any error on my part.

//Edit: However, I’m unclear where an error lies? Do you mind telling me what your intention was in asking me whether I am a licensed clinician or graduate student? What would it answer?

Additionally, // for the sake of mutual understanding, could you clarify how knowing whether I am a licensed clinician or whether I am a graduate student, despite the fact that they are not mutually exclusive, was relevant to anything I said? Someone else asked that too and you didn’t respond.

This is a psychology graduate student message board, which presumes some degree of membership. You used the term “we”, which indicates identification of group membership. Formal logic has specific dictates regarding group. I asked for clarification regarding group. You responded using an ad hominem, which is a formal error of logic. As you are inclined to call out logical fallacies, it stands to reason that you are also bound by those.

I find it interesting that the question has yet to be answered.

 

[ccool]

This is a psychology graduate student message board, which presumes some degree of membership. You used the term “we”, which indicates identification of group membership. Formal logic has specific dictates regarding group. I asked for clarification regarding group. You responded using an ad hominem, which is a formal error of logic. As you are inclined to call out logical fallacies, it stands to reason that you are also bound by those.

I find it interesting that the question has yet to be answered.

Hmm. Curious. I answered what I meant by we in my response to you - all people, for review.

This response still does not answer the question of what your purpose of asking whether I was a graduate student or licensed clinician, implying that I was one or another, nor how my membership in either, both, or none of those groups was relevant to the content of my response. In this current response to me you just said that my very presence on this graduate student board presumes some degree of membership. Given that base presumption, it’s unclear what the purpose of further identifying me as one or the other is. The act of asking the question implies that it is relevant to the matter at hand for some reason...which is what I’m confused about and so am asking you for clarification.

matter at hand, for reference:

Furthermore, part of the study of psychopathology is empirically examining predictors, outcomes, trajectories, and other correlates so that, as mentioned, we have a greater understanding of the implications of phenomena at hand, and we can be better educated about what is more and less desired thoughts, feelings, behavior for whom under what contexts for what goals.

Also, can you point to where or how I used an ad hominem? I don’t see it at all. In fact, guessing that you might presume the articulation of my secondary observation or thought that people who get upset by the idea that all people having access to knowledge and skills rather than those things being reserved for a select few are patronizing elitists was some kind of dig at you, I clearly said that I am not calling you that. And that I do not know you or what you think or feel. And because of that lack of knowledge, I can’t (and honestly don’t care to because it is irrelevant to me and this discussion how you might identify) make that judgement. I suppose you could not believe that I’m being honest when I say that, which may lead you to take my observation about patronizing elitists as an ad hominem argument in reference to you. However, I am being 100% genuine, as I always am on this board and otherwise. It is absolutely your right not to believe me, but the reality is that you do not know me or what I think or feel either. So any presumption that you have about my internal world is solely a matter of your perception. Additionally, I don’t know what your argument even is so there is nothing for me to even respond to with a true counter or with a fallacy.

lastly, you’re right, I am inclined to call out fallacies. My goal always is mutual understanding, regardless of disagreement. The use of fallacies to engage with arguments or assertions makes our collective efforts towards that goal so unnecessarily difficult. Instead of engaging with content, furthering the discussion, and clarifying any confusion or misunderstanding, time and energy is wasted on irrelevant and sometimes harmful tangents at best, and at worst, people belittle one another or turn others against one another (and/or the argument) and the goal of mutual understanding is stymied for all. I don’t think that all people necessarily use fallacious arguments with those motivations in mind nor do I think that all people use fallacious arguments with the intention of being fallacious. However, by calling attention to them, and with a little humility and patiencemaybe even clearing up misunderstanding, it is my hope that we can get back on track with the stuff that actually matters, to me at least, mutual growth and understanding for all.

all that said, I fully respect your right to be, think, engage however you see fit unless I feel you are falsely undermining me or something I said. I feel similarly about the undermining of others. I don’t abide that. I commit to not undermining you or others and in the event that I do, please definitely let me know. I don’t want to do that. Otherwise, I hope that you would give me the same courtesy to be, do, and engage however I see fit.

 

[calimich]

We? Are you a licensed clinician or grad student?

I also find the timing and framing of the question interesting. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive and neither are necessary for membership. According to SDN "Our diverse membership spans from high school students to attending physicians and reflects our mission to build a diverse doctor workforce."

And this message board in particular certainly receives posts from people who are neither licensed clinicians nor graduate students, without their group membership being questioned. I posted regularly during my first couple years as a tt faculty -- after earning my phd even though I was yet to be licensed, and my group membership was never questioned. I also think there are a few current, regular, seemingly respected posters who are also neither graduate students nor licensed clinicians; I don't recall their group membership being questioned on this board.

This has me thinking of in-grouping/out-grouping and takes me back to questions of "What are my beliefs and biases about certain groups?" How does knowledge of (or lack of) group membership influence perception...something about how does knowledge of group membership impact perceived strength of argument....and questions of projection and curiosity about my own beliefs about credentials....

clearly I think they're somewhat important as I've chosen to publicly display mine on this board and submitted some sort of documentation for "official" SDN approval.

 

[borne_before]

James Carville is in hot water this morning for saying that "wokeness is a problem and we all know it." What's interesting to me is
"You ever get the sense that people in faculty lounges in fancy colleges use a different language than ordinary people? They come up with a word like “Latinx” that no one else uses. Or they use a phrase like “communities of color.” I don’t know anyone who speaks like that. I don’t know anyone who lives in a “community of color.” I know lots of white and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not."

I think if we continue to play wokeist language games, where we police terms (which is certainly a postmodernist game) we are in a real danger of undermining psychology's value to the ordinary people. I guarantee you that the only people who care about this stuff are people in the faculty lounges. If psychology wants to be useful to most people, I think we need to recognize why we want to play language games (it's postmodernist tactic to undermine power and prevent fluid discourse; purposely disruptive) and use language that normies can relate too. There are already many people who view psychology as too politicized (and to be fair, it is). I will continue to use the term abnormal psychology (which I really haven't used since I took that class as an undergrad).