That's an incorrect use. Imposter syndrome is called _imposter_ syndrome for a reason.
Couldn't you say this about the names of various psychological syndromes? "If you aren't Alice in Wonderland, why would you call it Alice in Wonderland syndrome?"
It's referring to the person's subjective experience, from their (perhaps warped) point of view.
Imagine a lawyer who is terrified to go to work every day. She went to a good law school, got good grades, passed the bar exam, is well-respected in her field, etc. But she is terrified that her colleagues will, one of these days, find out that she's not even truly a lawyer at all -- she's just someone who managed to jump through enough hoops to convince people that she's a real lawyer. Once the people around her learn who she really is, hoo boy... she's going to lose her law license and her reputation and her clients and her house... she lives in fear of being "found out" every single day and it's beginning to affect both her career and her health.
Is this lawyer an imposter? No, she's truly the lawyer everyone thinks she is, and it would be inaccurate to call her an imposter. But she is suffering from imposter syndrome.
If the lawyer feels like an imposter in her current role, that's different from feeling like an imposter in a role you don't even have. This is the distinction I'm making, and why I think the label doesn't fit. Should I feel like I have imposter syndrome because I'd be uncomfortable as a professional athlete, something I don't do? Or should I just realize I don't have confidence to do something else? To me those are very different. Recognizing I can't do everything isn't a form of imposter syndrome - if it is it makes the label completely meaningless.
I'm aware it's a psychological condition. We're arguing over something we haven't even defined yet though, so how would you define it?
I'm not trying to haggle, but we can't have a meaningful conversation about a term if you aren't going to define it.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
We aren't talking about short couch potatoes being scared to apply to the NBA. That's a justified sense of inadequacy.
We're talking about people switching from one fairly normal job to another one that probably has a lot of overlap with what a person was already doing. Imposter syndrome is the unjustified sense of inadequacy.
Its not a binary thing though. Some people would have a little bit of doubt transitioning to a slightly different role and that's normal. Change is scary to lots of people to varying degrees. However, some people are very competent, yet might be afraid to apply for a higher level position or a slightly different role because they fear that they are actually terrible and that they've gotten where they are due to luck and graft. That's imposter syndrome.
Its used to refer to people that are actually competent at what they do but they feel like they have faked everything and that the entire world is about to find out. A lack of self confidence is a core part of imposter syndrome.
Most people aren't thumping the dictionary like a fundamentalist might a Bible, they're just pointing out that they have a different understanding of the word than another person does. Language is useful when everyone's on the same page.
And especially regarding words drifting toward hyperbole, exaggeration, and sometimes simple misuse, sometimes it makes sense to resist the change. Compare this to cultural drift as a whole - sometimes, it drifts away for the worse and people calling it out as such aren't necessarily being obtuse just for the fun of it.
Sincerely, a person that refuses to let to of the whole "literally" thing. I'm great at parties.
Sometimes you might want to speak more formally or 'proper' - but that's just another example of communicating effectively, by using word choice to convey the right level of formality. Or to be perceived a certain way.
Of course it's fine people are pointing out that they use the word a different way. Just saying I think the author used a clear word choice to effectively communicate what he meant to the largest number of people - even the people who are pointing out that he used the word wrong know what he was trying to communicate(otherwise they wouldn't realize he was using it 'incorrectly').
Literally has been used to also (or mainly) mean "figurativelly" for centuries, including in major authors, it's not some new phenomenon from some unsophisticated masses...
It's just a sound, it's not attached to some inherent meaning that must stand still till the end of time. Not to mention etymology (it originating from the word literal) != meaning.
In fact, literal itself (and literally) have changed meaning twice in the past, originally they were used to talk about things related to words not to mean "in actuality" (which is also where "literature" comes from: littera from which literature and literal comes from meant: "letters").
So, it's people who don't know the proper history and use of literally that are annoyed by its used as "figuratively".
Probably they also don't know that literally wasn't about "in reality" to begin with, or that this is just one of many contronyms, words that mean both one thing and the opposite (e.g. "dust" - you "dust" to clean a house, and you also "dust" to sprinkle some powder on something, or "clip" which means both to attach and dettach, "sanction" - to approve or to put punitive measures on, etc.).
My argument isn't really based in etymology, though, and I don't really care about the history of the words I quibble over - I'm fine with language changing in general. My issue is that making "literally" an alias to "very very" and/or "figuratively" leaves a gap where I liked the word to be and may leave it ambiguous. If I were to write about a guy who heard a joke so funny that his heart gave out, I'd be in a real pickle. A real pickle.
So the history of the word doesn't really change my opinion, and doesn't make my opinion based in some sort of ignorance. It's sort of fun to argue against the history-based argument that's usually used to support "my side" (invalidly, it seems), though.
Wouldn't that be a figurative/metaphorical pickle? I can't imagine you'd be inside a jar in actual brine and left to ferment.
For instance, let's say "begging the question" is a logical fallacy and we're in the universe where it refers to the circular argument fallacy. Fallacious arguments are bad and so we can dismiss an argument that relies on this.
Now, let's say over time "begging the question" means "the question begs asking". If we still act as if "that begs the question" means "that is a fallacious argument" then the shift in meaning has made us reach incorrect conclusions.
That is, if meaning shifts, you must bust your cache on conclusions that follow out from the original meaning.
Certainly. But most of the time the problem is not people that have a "stale case", but that know perfectly well what the new meaning is, but are opposed to others using the word in that sense for ideological or pedantic reasons.
I mean, nobody really thinks "I'm literally dead from exhaustion" means I'm actually dead. They know perfectly well what it means, and have no meaning-cache issue. They just want to be pedantic...
My lack of confidence at playing recreational basketball, on the other hand, is fairly well-founded. It does have a basis and I will probably succeed better if I focus on building my game. I'm bottlenecking on skill.
The 40-point-guy, on the other hand, is not going to get any better if he focuses on improving his game. He's bottlenecking on confidence.
On the gripping hand, though, you're right in that this case seems to have just been a prescriptivist speaking and personally I usually find terminology-discussions boring, so I'm horrified to have found myself having participated in one on the side of prolonging. I'll leave the previous bit in just because it's a thought I already wrote.