Here’s an article on the angry Penn State student reaction that uses some new flashy psych terms such as CORFing. Too bad they're not the older less flashy terms (fundamental attribution error). Perhaps the former only relates to groups while the latter applies to individuals (although I don’t see why that has to be the case)?

There’s a long tradition in any field of making up new words when you gain more and more experience. Usually those words are helpful and/or productive. And typically the field will remember its own history (i.e., refer to the words it used in the past).

But if you’re the banking/accounting industry, you’ll make up words that have multiple meanings such as credit and debit.

As easy as it is for me to pick on this words issue I still want to show respect to the experts in their field (even if I don’t take the time to fully understand the terms they’re using or how they got to those terms). It’s easy to toss the complexities of any field into the disgust bucket.

But being an expert usually requires years of dedication to the craft/field of choice. Props to all those dedicated enough to become an expert in their field of choice. Props to all those who’ve taken the time to understand “the why.” Props to those who know how to explain “the why” and not just give “the what” and expect you to follow blindly.

A bit of a cluttered piece but there’s a point in there somewhere that I reserve the right to claim I made if it in fact proves to be intelligent.