SpringLoadedScoop

Saying you'll leave after you redeem the 80,000 points is like saying my imaginary friend will protect me in a fight.

Neither exist and neither will ever be any benefit when you need them

When I was working in a career connected to journalism, there were standing rules such as not writing articles about suicides if it doesn't have other newsworthy aspects as it might encourage other troubled people and cause a sort of social contagion.

I've then seen other people take that main idea and bring it into concerns about posting on social media, books, television scripts, etc.

Outside of journalism I've heard to not be afraid to bring up the issue. That talking about suicide can encourage people to acknowledge their suicidal feelings and talking about them can keep them in check or encourage them to seek help. That mentioning suicide to a distressed individual isn't going to make the idea pop into their head.

Is the difference between the two concepts one that a personalized conversation is different than a news report? Are the journalists basing their prohibition on something without a scientific basis? Are the journalists just full of themselves and their perceived power over the public's attention and actions?

Why does the psychology field take perfectly normal, long existing words (such as "depression", "anxiety", "boundary", "trigger", etc. Maybe "gaslighting", but that is a newer word) and come up with their own domain specific, precise definitions that no longer matches the colloquial definition. (well its only depression when it ...")

How can we get psychology to just come up with their own words and acronyms ( agoraphobia, CBT, aboulia , ADHD, maybe depersonalization, etc.) and stop stealing our words?