In the realm of mental health discourse, there exists a general discouragement of specific colloquial terms, notably “crazy.” This linguistic caution is not without reason; it is intended to promote respectful and stigma-free communication. However, we find ourselves in a quandary when describing behaviors or actions that seem decidedly unconventional, eccentric, or outlandish. In my perspective, there are instances where our efforts to sanitize and refine language result in an unintended loss—a loss that warrants examination.

So, what precisely is forfeited when we diligently sanitize language and eschew colorful modifiers like “crazy” when attempting to elucidate an individual’s demeanor or a conspicuously extravagant and arguably gratuitous display of behavior? Several facets are relinquished in this process, each deserving of consideration.

Foremost, the dimension of magnitude is compromised. The sheer enormity, exuberance, or voluminous nature of unconventional behavior, or what I might call a “bat-shit over-the-top extreme,” becomes challenging to convey without resorting to the now-forbidden term. The question arises: Why is it problematic to omit this dimension from our descriptions?

On a clinical level, this omission can be disruptive to treatment planning and may even pose risks to clinicians. When reviewing Electronic Health Records (EHR) notes bereft of vivid descriptions, one often encounters a dismally dull and cryptic portrayal of the individual. Such notes offer scant insight into the client’s emotional state, leaving the clinician unable to gauge their overall well-being.

When contemplating the course of treatment for this hypothetical case, the absence of descriptive richness becomes a substantial impediment. It leaves clinicians inadequately prepared for potential shifts in the client’s mental state, especially if such shifts lean towards extreme conditions demanding a different therapeutic approach.

But, let us momentarily set aside these clinical concerns and contemplate the broader implications of this loss of language. I contend that an authentic facet of the human disposition is at stake. While I view life as a series of chapters from the theatre of the absurd, I acknowledge that others may aspire to lead more subdued and predictable lives. The notion of disposition or presentation is intertwined with the distinctive qualities of thought processes that encapsulate the critical and uniquely identifiable facets of personality. These facets, which should not be excised from written or spoken language, signify what sets one individual apart.

In essence, removing descriptive elements not only hampers clinical understanding but also diminishes the richness of everyday conversation. It deprives us of a significant portion of a person’s narrative—the aspects that differentiate their story from those of others.

To delve into the implications of this description, loss is a topic that merits discussion. However, the overarching point is this: it exerts a substantial impact, as evidenced by the examples presented here.

Now, what does all this imply? My primary concern extends beyond the realm of clinical language and treatment. It delves into matters of identity and the pervasive influence of “politically correct” terminology in discussions about mental health. There is a palpable sense that our narrow and formulaic approach to mental health language not only disrupts treatment but also seeps into our identities as individuals. It shapes how we think and speak about each other.

Today, “otherness” often leads to a diagnosis or labels behavior as something to be avoided—an unfortunate development. Our approach should embrace diversity, celebrate uniqueness, and distinguish between clinically disruptive deviations and beautifully distinctly different expressions of the human experience. It’s time to recognize that the spectrum of human behavior and disposition deserves appreciation, not confinement.