People and diseases/Conditions

[Rain]

For each of the conditions below please tell me if you usually say, "Jane has the condition" or "Jane is the condition."

For example "Joglin" is a made up condition.  Do you usually say "Jane has Joglin" or "Jane is Joglinic"?

AIDS

Alzheimer's

Anemia

Anorexia

Arthritis

Asperger's

Asthma

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Autism

Blindness

Bulimia

Cancer

Cerebral palsy

Deafness

Depression

Diabetes

Drug addiction

Endometriosis

Epilepsy

Fibromyalgia

Heart disease

Hemophilia 

Hepatitis 

Hypertension

kidney disease

Leukemia 

Lyme disease

Migraines

Multiple sclerosis

Narcolepsy

Obesity

Osteoporosis

Psoriasis

Psychosis 

Quadroplegia 

Restless leg syndrome

Schizophrenia 

Stroke

Please do the above part before reading further.

I am reading The Rabbit Effect.  One of the things talked about in it was that we tend to say people have physical conditions, but they are mental conditions.  I thought about that and it was true...to an extent.  Then I started coming up with a number of exceptions.

So first I wanted to see if you fell where I do in how you label to see if it does ring true, but then I would like to see if there is a pattern for the exceptions.  I have a couple of theories, but wanted to check the evidence from others before really going with the theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

I will do this later, but will just mention that my daughter’s doctors when she was first diagnosed made a very big deal about how we talked about diabetes and her.  I am not consistent though even when knowing the better way. I slip into habits like I do with suicide...intend to say “kill themselves” but often “committed suicide” pops up instead. 
 

This is the same principle I am talking about with “born that way”.  Language forms how we construct concepts about ourselves and others and they can be very inaccurate at times because of the implications of the language. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

I erased the ones I would most likely say “has ...” and kept the ones I would say “Jane is ....”

 

 

Blind

Deaf

Depressed

Drug addicted

Obese

[strappinglad]

Jane is  unwell                                                         Jane has cellulite

              feeling poorly                                                             appendicitis

              under the weather                                                      buck teeth

               coming down with something                                   halitosis 

Strappinglad is insufferable👿

[Kenngo1969]

I've had some [now] unenlightened descriptors used to describe me: "Crippled" is one that stands out; growing up, it was a favorite of some of my tormentors.  I'm not totally hung up on politically (in-)correct language, and I try to adhere to the old adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."  That said, yeah, generally, I do agree with the intent of person-first language.  I do agree that one's characteristics are things one has, not things one is.  I have Cerebral Palsy.  I think, though, that if someone were to use the perhaps-unenlightened descriptor "spastic" in reference to me, that would be hilarious!  

And I do understand and agree with the argument that there's only so much one can do with "allegedly ideal" language (my phrase) to describe decidedly less-than-ideal circumstances without seeming to simply be attempting too hard to "put lipstick on a pig."  Whatever one might call any such circumstance or however one may refer to it, still, there's no denying that at least in some ways, it sucks.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've had some [now] unenlightened descriptors used to describe me: "Crippled" is one that stands out; growing up, it was a favorite of some of my tormentors.  I'm not totally hung up on politically (in-)correct language, and I try to adhere to the old adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."  That said, yeah, generally, I do agree with the intent of person-first language.  I do agree that one's characteristics are things one has, not things one is.  I have Cerebral Palsy.  I think, though, that if someone were to use the perhaps-unenlightened descriptor "spastic" in reference to me, that would be hilarious!  

And I do understand and agree with the argument that there's only so much one can do with "allegedly ideal" language (my phrase) to describe decidedly less-than-ideal circumstances without seeming to simply be attempting too hard to "put lipstick on a pig."  Whatever one might call any such circumstance or however one may refer to it, still, there's no denying that at least in some ways, it sucks.

My daughters played with a girl with cerebral palsy and we all stay in contact to this day. I've never seen a harder working girl in my life. When she's not at her day job she's working at events everywhere in the SLC area and her favorite is the soccer club Real Salt Lake. 

For a long time she got by without a wheel chair but she's in it more now and drives with hand instruments. Nothing slows her down, and I've always been so impressed with her. As well as with you too, Ken!

[Kenngo1969]

47 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My daughters played with a girl with cerebral palsy and we all stay in contact to this day. I've never seen a harder working girl in my life. When she's not at her day job she's working at events everywhere in the SLC area and her favorite is the soccer club Real Salt Lake. 

For a long time she got by without a wheel chair but she's in it more now and drives with hand instruments. Nothing slows her down, and I've always been so impressed with her. As well as with you too, Ken!

+1!  👍

[Kenngo1969]

Yeah, now that I think about it, as someone who is dually diagnosed, there are a couple of behavioral conditions that spring to mind for which people tend to use "is" instead of "has": schizophrenic is one.  "Has schizophrenia" is better.

[strappinglad]

Person X is an idiot used to mean  " has an IQ under 60 " . Now it means they are of the wrong political persuasion . 

[Amulek]

On 5/15/2021 at 1:16 PM, Rain said:

I am reading The Rabbit Effect.  One of the things talked about in it was that we tend to say people have physical conditions, but they are mental conditions.  I thought about that and it was true...to an extent.  Then I started coming up with a number of exceptions.

So first I wanted to see if you fell where I do in how you label to see if it does ring true, but then I would like to see if there is a pattern for the exceptions.  I have a couple of theories, but wanted to check the evidence from others before really going with the theories.

Going through the list provided, I go either way on a lot of them - just depends on how I'm using it in a sentence. For example, I might say that "Jane has AIDS" but then I might also turn around and say that "Jane is AIDSmatic."

Okay, that's kind of a joke, but it does highlight a problem with some of the conditions listed. There isn't always a way to formulate them into an "X is [condition]" expression. I guess for AIDS you could go with "immunocompromised," but what would you use for something like Asperger's or Down's syndrome? Maybe there's an alternate term for those, but I'm not familiar with them (if they exist at all).

So, for me, the is/has distinction is really just about how I'm using it in a sentence. I don't make a special effort to say "Jane has hearing loss" as opposed to "Jane is hard of hearing."

Same for "Jane has red hair" vs "Jane is a redhead."

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Amulek

[The Nehor]

On 5/17/2021 at 11:51 PM, strappinglad said:

Person X is an idiot used to mean  " has an IQ under 60 " . Now it means they are of the wrong political persuasion . 

Couldn’t it be both?

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Couldn’t it be both?

Possibly, but I don't think that a person with an IQ of under 60 spends much time considering the nuances of political policy. Then again... 

no, I won't go there . 🤐

[Calm]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Possibly, but I don't think that a person with an IQ of under 60 spends much time considering the nuances of political policy. Then again... 

no, I won't go there . 🤐

Wisdom....

[Chum]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I don't think that a person with an IQ of under 60 spends much time considering the nuances of political policy.

Everything hinges on what we mean by considering.

Independent critical analysis - or uncritical acceptance followed by endless agitation cycles.