Ů��С��Ƶ

What do researchers of artificial intelligence, medicine and climate change have in common? They could all learn from the story of Rumpelstiltskin. As the fairy tale teaches us, knowing something’s “true name”, an ancient concept in folklore, gives us power over it.

While this may not seem very scientific, psychologists have repeatedly found that your name changes how people perceive you. The same may be true for scientific terms. Take “artificial intelligence”: while the technology is undeniably impressive, much of the drama around AI might have been avoided if we used the less grandiose name “machine learning”.

Of course, there is no such thing as a “true name” in the folkloric sense, but it is clear that some names are better than others. In recent years, there have been efforts to move away from disease names that stigmatise particular groups, with the Wuhan coronavirus swiftly becoming branded covid-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO), which also renamed monkeypox as mpox in 2022.

Other renamings correct errors, such as the new switch from polycystic ovary syndrome to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome to reflect the true cause of the condition.

The process of renaming isn’t always successful. While early research into the influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels referred to the “greenhouse effect” or “global warming”, both scientists and the general public are now more likely to speak of “climate change”, reflecting wider impacts beyond temperature. Meanwhile, “net zero”, once a technical term, has become unmoored from its true meaning and is often used by opponents to mean “an environmental policy I don’t like”.

So, what makes a renaming successful? It summons a clear image, which is why artificial intelligence wins out over machine learning. A top-down approach from an authority like the WHO also helps. But most of all, some names are just catchier. While somewhat of a tongue twister, you are never going to forget Rumpelstiltskin.