You certainly seem to have your mind made up about this either way, but a humble fwiw nevertheless: the author is a psychiatrist, not some bitter dev/hypothetical coworker like you seem to be suggesting.
Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?
In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?
I specifically take issue with the weak standard used.
> Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?
Is there a way to read this that isn't insulting? Do I need to reflect on my understanding until it matches yours?
> In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?
Never said any of that. It's a medical term and carries weight. Core symptoms are hallucinations and delusions. Here, delusions is not "my corporate product is better than your corporate product", it is not a strongly held belief that isn't real. We don't call belief in God psychosis. (some do, but that's beside the point)
Just so I don't get in trouble in the future: is it correct or incorrect to assume psychosis is necessarily accompanied by violence? I only ask because you response to the sibling comment seems to contradict your response to me? But, as you can probably tell, I am not working with much brainpower over here, so I am sure I am just misunderstanding!
Whataboutism is a plague.
That said, calling folks luddites is an annoyance.