The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf](allanschore.com)
allanschore.com
The Effects of Early Relational Trauma (2001) [pdf]
https://www.allanschore.com/pdf/SchoreIMHJTrauma01.pdf
202 comments
I had the same experience reading that book. It’s amazing that even though these effects are well documented, they aren’t really taught in medical school. I’ve never come across a doctor who knew anything about it. It’s really incredible and disheartening. Even when people advocate for “trauma-informed care”, they’re just talking about avoiding retraumatization. They never talk about the health consequences of trauma.
>They never talk about the health consequences of trauma.
Yeah, reading the deepest well, then reading all my increased chances for...just about every disease imaginable was grim. There isn't really a 'cure' or real treatment for it either.
I just realized, if I was at a much greater risk for health problems, I'd need to counterbalance that with lifestyle changes. I got treatment for an autoimmune condition. I started using exercise over alcohol to deal with stress. I improved my diet. I'm trying to get more sleep but that one I still struggle with.
I've purposefully made changes to lower the amounts of stress in my life. This is everything from choosing an employer with good WLB, to leaving extra time for myself to get places, to saying the 'serenity prayer' and focusing on things in my control. I cannot control everything that happens to me. I can control my reaction to it, or at least attempt to.
Yeah, reading the deepest well, then reading all my increased chances for...just about every disease imaginable was grim. There isn't really a 'cure' or real treatment for it either.
I just realized, if I was at a much greater risk for health problems, I'd need to counterbalance that with lifestyle changes. I got treatment for an autoimmune condition. I started using exercise over alcohol to deal with stress. I improved my diet. I'm trying to get more sleep but that one I still struggle with.
I've purposefully made changes to lower the amounts of stress in my life. This is everything from choosing an employer with good WLB, to leaving extra time for myself to get places, to saying the 'serenity prayer' and focusing on things in my control. I cannot control everything that happens to me. I can control my reaction to it, or at least attempt to.
I've done a lot on my own too. I'm hoping it'll help, but my health has been pretty bad the past few yers. It feels like I've gotten on top of it, though, and I've been improving, but it's a struggle. It's especially frustrating because I pay $1000/month for "health care" (I really use that term loosely) and doctors can't help at all. I've had to figure out everything on my own. What am I paying for?
I'm a former foster parent and I think we are likely to cure cancer long before we resolve childhood trauma.
Absolutely agreed. Even foster care itself is inherently traumatizing, no matter how good the foster parents are.
I was wrongfully taken into foster care for a couple months (due to police being called in a false accusation; the police took me without any investigation and handed me over to DFCS — my parents are actually wonderful and I couldn't have asked for a more supportive childhood), and it's positively ridiculous how severely it affected me.
My brother and my uncle both died when I was eight years old, and I was threatened, stalked, and assaulted by an obsessive ex-boyfriend in my early 20s (which ultimately led me to immigrate overseas to hide from him because nothing else worked) — and yet my brief stint in foster care was FAR more traumatic and affects me much more deeply to this day. Everything else barely rates a mention next to foster care. I don't expect I will ever again experience something as psychologically damaging.
I wasn't abused. My parents did everything right both before and after foster care, and my foster parents were fine. It was simply the forcible separation from my family at a young age that messed me up.
Of course, most kids who are taken into foster care aren't like me; they experience abuse at home and are in danger, and foster care is necessary to protect them. But how do you solve childhood trauma in these kids when saving them from abuse is, itself, a source of severe childhood trauma?
I was wrongfully taken into foster care for a couple months (due to police being called in a false accusation; the police took me without any investigation and handed me over to DFCS — my parents are actually wonderful and I couldn't have asked for a more supportive childhood), and it's positively ridiculous how severely it affected me.
My brother and my uncle both died when I was eight years old, and I was threatened, stalked, and assaulted by an obsessive ex-boyfriend in my early 20s (which ultimately led me to immigrate overseas to hide from him because nothing else worked) — and yet my brief stint in foster care was FAR more traumatic and affects me much more deeply to this day. Everything else barely rates a mention next to foster care. I don't expect I will ever again experience something as psychologically damaging.
I wasn't abused. My parents did everything right both before and after foster care, and my foster parents were fine. It was simply the forcible separation from my family at a young age that messed me up.
Of course, most kids who are taken into foster care aren't like me; they experience abuse at home and are in danger, and foster care is necessary to protect them. But how do you solve childhood trauma in these kids when saving them from abuse is, itself, a source of severe childhood trauma?
This stuff is almost too scary for me to read. My childhood was awful and only around age 30 did my life start to get "better".
First 20 years of my life was me waiting to get out of the environment I was in. The next 5 trying to stay alive. The past 5 improving myself, my mental health, the way I view life and relate to others.
It's all good in the end. For 25 years of my life I thought everyone faked being happy. I now know that it actually is possible to be happy :).
It's all good in the end. For 25 years of my life I thought everyone faked being happy. I now know that it actually is possible to be happy :).
I was sexually abused by a family member at young age. It certainly affected me in negative ways, and should be stopped, but it is also important to emphasize to current victims that being abused doesn't make you uniquely and shamefully damaged. Some large percentage of humans have been traumatized as children, and many of us find our way to a fulfilling and good life. Lots of therapy, maybe a few sharp corners that won't go away, but still healing is possible, and not even algorithmically difficult, just a lot of hard work and awareness and willingness to question deeply behind the surface of things.
I might sometimes get triggered by certain textures while I am eating, but I am able to trust people and tolerate being hurt without totally shutting down and enjoy my family and work and leisure.
Some people are tremendously evil, but most people are surprisingly resilient. We didn't get thru human history without being able to overcome a lot.
I might sometimes get triggered by certain textures while I am eating, but I am able to trust people and tolerate being hurt without totally shutting down and enjoy my family and work and leisure.
Some people are tremendously evil, but most people are surprisingly resilient. We didn't get thru human history without being able to overcome a lot.
Both the cause and consequences of this need to be addressed, but the problems are twofold; one is that - of course - it's hidden, and most cases of abuse are never made public; in my personal experience (not me but my SO) it's the victim that doesn't want anyone else to know, and I'm confident that this is the case in many cases.
And the other part - the consequences - need to be addressed too. Many people I know are in a mental health program of sorts, myself included although that was mostly last year and nothing major. But a lot of people in their 30's finally have the awareness that something is not right, the time/means to pursue it, and the access to mental health, and get a lot of epiphanies on themselves - be it trauma, neurodiversity such as ADHD/ASD, etc. At least four adults I know have started on ADHD medication and have had an emotional moment where for the first times in their life their head emptied and they could think straight or not go through a dozen mood swings a day.
But we're in a mental health crisis; a lot of people grew up with "just suck it up", "deal with it", "there's others that have it worse", or "this is normal", but thanks to awareness, the internet, and reduced stigma to talk about mental health, there's a lot of people now who realize they need help, which is overloading the mental health systems. In my country there's at least a year long wait period for some of the most vulnerable people (teenagers), which is a big problem because teenagers are also more neuroplastic still, so they would benefit the most from mental health help compared to people in their 30's.
TL;DR, while the root causes from an older generation will be difficult to solve, I have high hopes for a younger generation that has more awareness and access to mental health problems and who can hopefully resolve their own issues growing up and not pass it on to the younger generation.
However, I'm also aware that the above is a very "western" point of view; there's plenty of situations worldwide, right now, that will result in generational trauma for decades to come yet. The people currently living in warzones, poverty, etc will never be the same again. "Our" generation is the children and grandchildren of people who lived through WW2, who themselves or whose parents lived through WW1 and the Great Depression, and this generational trauma is still very much affecting "us" today to lesser or greater degrees.
And the other part - the consequences - need to be addressed too. Many people I know are in a mental health program of sorts, myself included although that was mostly last year and nothing major. But a lot of people in their 30's finally have the awareness that something is not right, the time/means to pursue it, and the access to mental health, and get a lot of epiphanies on themselves - be it trauma, neurodiversity such as ADHD/ASD, etc. At least four adults I know have started on ADHD medication and have had an emotional moment where for the first times in their life their head emptied and they could think straight or not go through a dozen mood swings a day.
But we're in a mental health crisis; a lot of people grew up with "just suck it up", "deal with it", "there's others that have it worse", or "this is normal", but thanks to awareness, the internet, and reduced stigma to talk about mental health, there's a lot of people now who realize they need help, which is overloading the mental health systems. In my country there's at least a year long wait period for some of the most vulnerable people (teenagers), which is a big problem because teenagers are also more neuroplastic still, so they would benefit the most from mental health help compared to people in their 30's.
TL;DR, while the root causes from an older generation will be difficult to solve, I have high hopes for a younger generation that has more awareness and access to mental health problems and who can hopefully resolve their own issues growing up and not pass it on to the younger generation.
However, I'm also aware that the above is a very "western" point of view; there's plenty of situations worldwide, right now, that will result in generational trauma for decades to come yet. The people currently living in warzones, poverty, etc will never be the same again. "Our" generation is the children and grandchildren of people who lived through WW2, who themselves or whose parents lived through WW1 and the Great Depression, and this generational trauma is still very much affecting "us" today to lesser or greater degrees.
I get that feeling of feeling like everyone is faking being happy, and I'm glad that you've found a way to overcome it.
For me, I've always struggled with being overly cynical. I can't let nice moments be, and I can't let accomplishments lie.
I feel like I'm somewhere on the journey you are on, and I hope to get to the same destination.
For me, I've always struggled with being overly cynical. I can't let nice moments be, and I can't let accomplishments lie.
I feel like I'm somewhere on the journey you are on, and I hope to get to the same destination.
I'm no psychologist but I share the sentiment, a feeling of "this'll all end up in tears anyway". From the point of view of attachment theory, it may be related to avoidant attachment; don't get too attached to nice moments, accomplishments, good times because something will go wrong.
I'm fairly sure I'm in the avoidant quadrant; as to what caused it, I'm not entirely sure but the things that fit are that my mother was very ill when I was 3 (thrombosis, she spent a few days in ER), and that a friend who sort of "saved" me from being all alone at school just left one day (her parents moved), which re-emphasized my already present feeling of "shouldn't get too attached". The rest was probably self-inflicted, feelings of superiority / being more mature than the other kids, fear of rejection, etc. But it adds up and resulted in growing up awkward, immature, single, boring, etc. I'm 38 now and have been through some mental health stuff, but it's expensive (since it's not clinical) and ultimately pointless unless I throw my life around, become a more social person, and get a lot more reinforcement that I'm wrong and my cynicism is not justified. But instead I get reinforcement that I'm not wrong. To a point that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, but at the same time society is going through a loneliness crisis and focused on individuality, so... I'm not wrong?
Anyway; avoidant attachment theory, have a look.
I'm fairly sure I'm in the avoidant quadrant; as to what caused it, I'm not entirely sure but the things that fit are that my mother was very ill when I was 3 (thrombosis, she spent a few days in ER), and that a friend who sort of "saved" me from being all alone at school just left one day (her parents moved), which re-emphasized my already present feeling of "shouldn't get too attached". The rest was probably self-inflicted, feelings of superiority / being more mature than the other kids, fear of rejection, etc. But it adds up and resulted in growing up awkward, immature, single, boring, etc. I'm 38 now and have been through some mental health stuff, but it's expensive (since it's not clinical) and ultimately pointless unless I throw my life around, become a more social person, and get a lot more reinforcement that I'm wrong and my cynicism is not justified. But instead I get reinforcement that I'm not wrong. To a point that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, but at the same time society is going through a loneliness crisis and focused on individuality, so... I'm not wrong?
Anyway; avoidant attachment theory, have a look.
I've been going through a similar metamorphosis, but it didn't start until 36.
I wonder sometimes whether I'll have missed out on some things permanently because of it. For instance, every year my odds of carrying a healthy child to term drop farther, and I'm already considered "geriatric" for pregnancy purposes.
I really don't see how it could have happened any earlier than it did, and I'm grateful it happened at all because I can easily see how it could have been worse, but there's still a grief journey involved even though I try not to dwell on the things lost.
I wonder sometimes whether I'll have missed out on some things permanently because of it. For instance, every year my odds of carrying a healthy child to term drop farther, and I'm already considered "geriatric" for pregnancy purposes.
I really don't see how it could have happened any earlier than it did, and I'm grateful it happened at all because I can easily see how it could have been worse, but there's still a grief journey involved even though I try not to dwell on the things lost.
Everyone "misses out" on things either due to choices they make or events/accidents that are out of their control. Being a parent can be rewarding but it also comes with a lot of expense, worry, and sacrifice. There are a lot of things a childless person or couple can do that would be difficult or impossible for someone with kids, and a lot of things that they will never have to deal with (e.g. serious illness or death of a child, the possibility that the child "fails to launch" or even becomes a criminal, etc.).
I have no regrets but parenthood is a fork in the road in life and there is "missing out" on both sides of it.
I have no regrets but parenthood is a fork in the road in life and there is "missing out" on both sides of it.
The concern is whether you're missing out on something you would have preferred to have.
I missed out on a lot of young adult stuff, partying, traveling, sleeping around, and I can't seem to get over it. I have lots of money but I can't seem to buy my way out of resentment and envy for people who had a more ordinary life
I missed out on a lot of young adult stuff, partying, traveling, sleeping around, and I can't seem to get over it. I have lots of money but I can't seem to buy my way out of resentment and envy for people who had a more ordinary life
I think you've nailed it, and that it's subjective.
I missed out on those things too, but it doesn't bother me at all, because they're not things I wanted to experience, whereas parenthood feels to me like a big loss.
(I know it's not necessarily final, and there are lots of kids in the world in need of people who want to be parents. I'm not without hope that something like this is still in my future. That's not really the point here though.)
I missed out on those things too, but it doesn't bother me at all, because they're not things I wanted to experience, whereas parenthood feels to me like a big loss.
(I know it's not necessarily final, and there are lots of kids in the world in need of people who want to be parents. I'm not without hope that something like this is still in my future. That's not really the point here though.)
Yeah but you're missing out on what you imagine parenthood is, not the reality of what it is. I'm not saying parenthood can't be great, and most of us are biologically wired to want it, but there's also a far-from-zero chance that it can be heartbreaking. If, for whatever reason, you did not get to be a parent, you can still help children in many other ways and you can still live a life of positive influence in your community and among those close to you, and you will have done far more good with your life than many parents do.
This is all true, but I think I want to be a parent even if it is heartbreaking.
I think of my own parents' experience. My brother is an addict (thankfully sober for a decade now, but it was a long journey). My sister died suddenly and with no warning when she was only 29, and she was 8 months pregnant. My parents' experience, by any account, has been devastating.
But if you ask them whether they would rather never have had my siblings at all? Not a chance. Not even the flicker of a consideration.
I don't think the actually quite high chance that it will be heartbreaking deters me from wanting it. But I also don't consider keeping my heart unbroken a priority. My heart only manages to break when I love, and I'd rather live a life full of both love and heartbreak than forego the former in hopes of avoiding the latter.
I think of my own parents' experience. My brother is an addict (thankfully sober for a decade now, but it was a long journey). My sister died suddenly and with no warning when she was only 29, and she was 8 months pregnant. My parents' experience, by any account, has been devastating.
But if you ask them whether they would rather never have had my siblings at all? Not a chance. Not even the flicker of a consideration.
I don't think the actually quite high chance that it will be heartbreaking deters me from wanting it. But I also don't consider keeping my heart unbroken a priority. My heart only manages to break when I love, and I'd rather live a life full of both love and heartbreak than forego the former in hopes of avoiding the latter.
IMO that stuff is overrated, but either way you can't change the past, neither the mistakes you made, the abuse you suffered, or the stuff you never did. Look forward, not back.
And in my experience, if you have money you'll have no trouble finding people to party with you, if that's what you want to do. Go to the nearest bar and start buying rounds.
And in my experience, if you have money you'll have no trouble finding people to party with you, if that's what you want to do. Go to the nearest bar and start buying rounds.
I can say that from personal experience, sometimes it is the way things get projected in society or specific circles.
I'll give an example. I once rented at a house where the landlady and her partner were (eventually both) poly.
They were starbucks baristas that went clubbing/dating/etc far more frequently than me, I was getting back on my feet after finally being able to work on my childhood and 20s trauma.
Every new outfit, every new partner, was it's own show-off or conversation.
When I got a promotion, I did the 'got-a-promotion' thing and bought myself a 'decent' lens. My landlady's partner was a photographer and we had spoken about the topic in the past. As soon as I brought it up as a friendly shared interest topic? 'You are bragging/waving privilege'.
They were still, of course, happy to flaunt during 'game nights' that the majority of the group was going for all sorts of 'shenanigans' while myself and the other person that got driven out before me...
essentially realized they were narcissists. Well, really just the one and the Landlady was being manipulated by her partner. Fun talks with housemates, right?
But that is the bigger warning for those who have early trauma.
There are those who may or may not have their own trauma, some of them may actually mean well, but a -lot- of them will look at you as an easy target to beat down or manipulate to their own ends. When they get the 'win-win' of "This person has made better life choices than me, 'but I am smarter than them and am taking advantage of them'" is when it gets dangerous.
Smart people know. But they are trying to be polite or patient.
(Which, on the part of my former landlady's partner, is kinda sad. The only way she could feel better about themself was by taking someone they called a friend and trying to 'neg' them... I wasn't the only victim but I might have been the most gullible back then...)
I'll give an example. I once rented at a house where the landlady and her partner were (eventually both) poly.
They were starbucks baristas that went clubbing/dating/etc far more frequently than me, I was getting back on my feet after finally being able to work on my childhood and 20s trauma.
Every new outfit, every new partner, was it's own show-off or conversation.
When I got a promotion, I did the 'got-a-promotion' thing and bought myself a 'decent' lens. My landlady's partner was a photographer and we had spoken about the topic in the past. As soon as I brought it up as a friendly shared interest topic? 'You are bragging/waving privilege'.
They were still, of course, happy to flaunt during 'game nights' that the majority of the group was going for all sorts of 'shenanigans' while myself and the other person that got driven out before me...
essentially realized they were narcissists. Well, really just the one and the Landlady was being manipulated by her partner. Fun talks with housemates, right?
But that is the bigger warning for those who have early trauma.
There are those who may or may not have their own trauma, some of them may actually mean well, but a -lot- of them will look at you as an easy target to beat down or manipulate to their own ends. When they get the 'win-win' of "This person has made better life choices than me, 'but I am smarter than them and am taking advantage of them'" is when it gets dangerous.
Smart people know. But they are trying to be polite or patient.
(Which, on the part of my former landlady's partner, is kinda sad. The only way she could feel better about themself was by taking someone they called a friend and trying to 'neg' them... I wasn't the only victim but I might have been the most gullible back then...)
[deleted]
Self-perpetuating trauma needs to be understood (with compassion).
Hurt people hurt people.
As in, people who feel they are victims often feel they have the right/necessity to hurt others. It’s a real pattern that is hard to talk about.
Hurt people hurt people.
As in, people who feel they are victims often feel they have the right/necessity to hurt others. It’s a real pattern that is hard to talk about.
Finally a subject my childhood makes me "expert" at!
People often say that I have a unsavory dark humor, but it's one of the best coping mechanism out there.
My earliest memory is my mother spreading food all over my face because I didn't want to finish my plate. I remember my eyes hurting because of the pepper in it.
My father threatened to shoot the family dog on a weekly basis to make me behave.
I could not leave the house alone until I was around 12, thus making me not socialized. To this day in my 30s I have a hard time forming friendship.
They also threatened me on a daily basis to "give me to CPS". Then they actually did it for two years. I wasn't a delinquent or violent mind you, and didn't do drugs.
They would often bring me in front of the school's psychologist and he would make me cry in front of them, always blaming me, never once asking me what was going on at home.
Once I applied for a job that required a high security clearance. I had to write "all the traumas of your childhood and your adolescence". I filled two pages, one trauma per line, and I just told them that I couldn't be exhaustive because of the sheer quantity.
But I think I can stop here, you get the point.
One of the main thing is the inability of standing up for myself. By default and unless proven otherwise, I'm already convinced that if something bad happens then this is my fault. If someone accuses me of something bogus, I just accept the accusation and apologize. This got me in real deep trouble more than once; fortunately not as an adult.
Also not being able to say "no" and being of hurting people feelings to the point of absurdity.
I could do an AMA in this thread if someone's interested lol
People often say that I have a unsavory dark humor, but it's one of the best coping mechanism out there.
My earliest memory is my mother spreading food all over my face because I didn't want to finish my plate. I remember my eyes hurting because of the pepper in it.
My father threatened to shoot the family dog on a weekly basis to make me behave.
I could not leave the house alone until I was around 12, thus making me not socialized. To this day in my 30s I have a hard time forming friendship.
They also threatened me on a daily basis to "give me to CPS". Then they actually did it for two years. I wasn't a delinquent or violent mind you, and didn't do drugs.
They would often bring me in front of the school's psychologist and he would make me cry in front of them, always blaming me, never once asking me what was going on at home.
Once I applied for a job that required a high security clearance. I had to write "all the traumas of your childhood and your adolescence". I filled two pages, one trauma per line, and I just told them that I couldn't be exhaustive because of the sheer quantity.
But I think I can stop here, you get the point.
One of the main thing is the inability of standing up for myself. By default and unless proven otherwise, I'm already convinced that if something bad happens then this is my fault. If someone accuses me of something bogus, I just accept the accusation and apologize. This got me in real deep trouble more than once; fortunately not as an adult.
Also not being able to say "no" and being of hurting people feelings to the point of absurdity.
I could do an AMA in this thread if someone's interested lol
That's seriously awful.
I'm glad you have a sense of humor because that seems like one of the helpful reactions that could arise from such a nightmare.
> They would often bring me in front of the school's psychologist and he would make me cry in front of them, always blaming me, never once asking me what was going on at home.
It's remarkable how institutions (the school psychologist in your case) often re-inflict the trauma that is going on at home. It's their job to protect the child, but often they do the opposite, and it's worth asking why. I experienced this myself, though in a very different context—everyone's story is unique of course.
Good for you for surviving, and best wishes for growth and healing.
I'm glad you have a sense of humor because that seems like one of the helpful reactions that could arise from such a nightmare.
> They would often bring me in front of the school's psychologist and he would make me cry in front of them, always blaming me, never once asking me what was going on at home.
It's remarkable how institutions (the school psychologist in your case) often re-inflict the trauma that is going on at home. It's their job to protect the child, but often they do the opposite, and it's worth asking why. I experienced this myself, though in a very different context—everyone's story is unique of course.
Good for you for surviving, and best wishes for growth and healing.
> It's remarkable how institutions (the school psychologist in your case) often re-inflict the trauma that is going on at home. It's their job to protect the child, but often they do the opposite, and it's worth asking why. I experienced this myself, though in a very different context—everyone's story is unique of course.
I think the simplest explanation here is Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crud. This goes for members of institutions as well, even if they aren't overworked, underpaid, and undertrained as so many are.
On top of that, abusers are often charming and highly skilled liars and manipulators. To get away with it for an extended period of time it is necessary to convince the victims that institutions won't help them, so performing abuse in front of a representative of the institution can be a ploy to reinforce their power. If the school psychologist had been likely to challenge the abusers, they likely would have picked a different authority figure (teacher, principal, &c.).
I think the simplest explanation here is Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crud. This goes for members of institutions as well, even if they aren't overworked, underpaid, and undertrained as so many are.
On top of that, abusers are often charming and highly skilled liars and manipulators. To get away with it for an extended period of time it is necessary to convince the victims that institutions won't help them, so performing abuse in front of a representative of the institution can be a ploy to reinforce their power. If the school psychologist had been likely to challenge the abusers, they likely would have picked a different authority figure (teacher, principal, &c.).
The abusers really can go from threatening a six year old with what sounds like credible threats to making the adults laugh within seconds without any visible whiplash.
And the will to deny is extremely strong; to believe the child one has to revamp one's beliefs about society in a large and risky direction.
And the will to deny is extremely strong; to believe the child one has to revamp one's beliefs about society in a large and risky direction.
They genuinely believe that everything is justified; even if they hide what they are doing from public view. "I do this because I care about you, other parents would have given up a long time ago". The hiding is also blamed on the child, claiming that he or she is the one that would destroy their reputation if words got out of what he or she did and what the extend of what the parents had to do to "remedy" the situation.
Thank you for the kind words!
In my experience, and not only with that instance, power defers to power. An unruly child's pleadings will never prevail over his parents that are really good at making themselves appear as victims (http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-miss...). Or as famous lawyer Gerry Spence said, "the gentleman of the bar is there for the other gentleman of the bar".
Also, let's not deny it, I was not a nice and adults would not be nice in return and I would respond in kind. I was a reflection of what was going at home. This makes other adults not want to be nice at all. I can't count the times where I was told "oops, we forgot to bring one for you" or something along those lines.
In my experience, and not only with that instance, power defers to power. An unruly child's pleadings will never prevail over his parents that are really good at making themselves appear as victims (http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-miss...). Or as famous lawyer Gerry Spence said, "the gentleman of the bar is there for the other gentleman of the bar".
Also, let's not deny it, I was not a nice and adults would not be nice in return and I would respond in kind. I was a reflection of what was going at home. This makes other adults not want to be nice at all. I can't count the times where I was told "oops, we forgot to bring one for you" or something along those lines.
> It's their job to protect the child, but often they do the opposite, and it's worth asking why.
It seems pretty simple to me why. If we were talking about a job in tech, there would be 10,000 snarky responses about how it was obvious that this project manager or that maintenance developer was just protecting their job. Same here. Rocking the boat as a guidance counselor or anything like that just invites complaints (warranted or not), and in those roles they're judged by the school administrators on how many (or few) complaints are received. Same as teachers, I think. And though I've read no stories from school psychologists, teachers who get even a few complaints find themselves unwelcome in that district.
Maybe my speculation is wrong in this regard, but if so, I can't see the flaw in it.
It seems pretty simple to me why. If we were talking about a job in tech, there would be 10,000 snarky responses about how it was obvious that this project manager or that maintenance developer was just protecting their job. Same here. Rocking the boat as a guidance counselor or anything like that just invites complaints (warranted or not), and in those roles they're judged by the school administrators on how many (or few) complaints are received. Same as teachers, I think. And though I've read no stories from school psychologists, teachers who get even a few complaints find themselves unwelcome in that district.
Maybe my speculation is wrong in this regard, but if so, I can't see the flaw in it.
I had a very similar upbringing friend, I am so sorry to hear it. It's left me with life long deficiencies that haunt me to today, even when I don't realise it. It's tough.
It's always the deficiencies that are invisible that are the most vicious. You know that something is wrong with you but you can't tell what, why or what.
Sorry You had to go through that...
But if we're doing an AMA : mind writing a bit more about the recovery? You mentioned humor as a coping strategy, so that makes me think You've probably been through some kind of introspection / therapy. Mind writing a bit more on what worked / didn't in Your case?
But if we're doing an AMA : mind writing a bit more about the recovery? You mentioned humor as a coping strategy, so that makes me think You've probably been through some kind of introspection / therapy. Mind writing a bit more on what worked / didn't in Your case?
I would say that recovery started when I got out of the house for university. I picked a university that was at least 6 hours of driving away.
It was absolutely terrible and laborious; yet necessary. Being not socialized and not able to leave home alone for a very long time made me basically afraid of going outside the campus; I had to learn most life lessons people go through from childhood to early adulthood from scratch. People don't forgive you when you're an adult. Abusers love dependent children, even if they lament all the time that "you cost too much".
One of the things that's hard is separating the actual good parenting lessons from the abuse. From basic hygiene to on how to behave socially. Everything was laced in some kind of humiliation. "I told you this would happen, you think you're smarter than me haha!" kind of routine all the time.
I've never had therapy nor did I seek professional help. The bad experiences I've had with psychologists and other "professionals" that sided believed my parents by default were enough for me. This is not what I recommend, but I just can't let myself be vulnerable by the same kind of people again. It's like asking a severe burns victim to go through a firefighting course with live exercises. I have the chance of being smart and deeply introspective, but this is not perfect and very slow and fraught with painful mistakes. Just like most people should not represent themselves in a court of law, even if they're lawyers, I would not recommend doing that.
I mainly relied on the podcasts, shows and books from mental health professionals and also public forums, although I didn't really participate. Writing this stuff used to hurt a lot with a lot of flashbacks. Basically I did my own research, haha. Putting words to emotions and situations helps a lot, because abusers love twisting words, concepts and using logical fallacies to justify themselves. Also learning that I am not alone and that was happened to me was not right nor justified really helped a lot and was very validating.
I'm not done healing and probably never will be healed, but there is resilience and confidence that comes with successfully surmounting adversity.
It was absolutely terrible and laborious; yet necessary. Being not socialized and not able to leave home alone for a very long time made me basically afraid of going outside the campus; I had to learn most life lessons people go through from childhood to early adulthood from scratch. People don't forgive you when you're an adult. Abusers love dependent children, even if they lament all the time that "you cost too much".
One of the things that's hard is separating the actual good parenting lessons from the abuse. From basic hygiene to on how to behave socially. Everything was laced in some kind of humiliation. "I told you this would happen, you think you're smarter than me haha!" kind of routine all the time.
I've never had therapy nor did I seek professional help. The bad experiences I've had with psychologists and other "professionals" that sided believed my parents by default were enough for me. This is not what I recommend, but I just can't let myself be vulnerable by the same kind of people again. It's like asking a severe burns victim to go through a firefighting course with live exercises. I have the chance of being smart and deeply introspective, but this is not perfect and very slow and fraught with painful mistakes. Just like most people should not represent themselves in a court of law, even if they're lawyers, I would not recommend doing that.
I mainly relied on the podcasts, shows and books from mental health professionals and also public forums, although I didn't really participate. Writing this stuff used to hurt a lot with a lot of flashbacks. Basically I did my own research, haha. Putting words to emotions and situations helps a lot, because abusers love twisting words, concepts and using logical fallacies to justify themselves. Also learning that I am not alone and that was happened to me was not right nor justified really helped a lot and was very validating.
I'm not done healing and probably never will be healed, but there is resilience and confidence that comes with successfully surmounting adversity.
The lack of a clear notion of boundaries or self and thus ability to stand for yourself is a very subtle and deep problem. Good luck.
Yeah, I always assume that I'm the one whose presence is at best a privilege. It takes a lot of effort to take my proper place and stand up for myself. I'll never forgive them for putting this curse inside of me. Now words got out of what they did to me and my sisters and they pretty much have to hide. They deserve everything bad happening to them.
I had the displeasure of having to erode myself to survive after realising all this, it was horrendous, because I was now aware of what I needed to do for my own health but couldn't.
Do you have siblings? How have they turned out?
I have two older sisters. They are way older than me, which means they left for college when I was very young (when I was bout 5 or 6). I don't think they went through the same stuff as me, but still lived through a lot of very fucked up shit. We live in the same city and are very close, we see each other for their kids birthday and all of that. I'm very lucky to have them.
I know why my mother had me years later, because when my father was angry he would yell at my mother "it's you who wanted another, so take care of him", but with more vicious insults. It turns out that when my mother had her first pregnancy, she was supposed to have a son but had a miscarriage in the toilet. I think this pretty much explains her using me to satisfy her emotional needs all the time; I literally was her emotional garbage can. Telling me how she feels like an ATM for the family, how she's lonely and not taken seriously by others; things that a husband have to deal with, not a child.
So anyway, my sisters began to extended family members about what happened in our house when they were young and also of what happened to me. Like me, it probably took them years to unshame themselves and flip the culpability unto the abusers. It created a scandal I think in the extended family, although always very hush hush, as is usual in small rural places.
My parents probably got a word of what my sisters told about them and then when my oldest sister got her first child, it was actually my parents who stopped talking to them. They never told me why they stopped talking to my sisters, but we figured it out. For some reason that enraged my father and forced my mother to stop talking to them but not to me. After a few years I got tired of seeing them trying to play nice and burning bridges after bridges with other family members and family friends, and I decided to cut them off. Although my sisters never made any kind of ultimatum, I could see how my parents were throwing a wrench between my and my sisters by only talking to me and not to them.
There are more details to this sordid story. It really could make for a full TV drama episode; these people love drama and being the victim. Don't fall for their game.
I know why my mother had me years later, because when my father was angry he would yell at my mother "it's you who wanted another, so take care of him", but with more vicious insults. It turns out that when my mother had her first pregnancy, she was supposed to have a son but had a miscarriage in the toilet. I think this pretty much explains her using me to satisfy her emotional needs all the time; I literally was her emotional garbage can. Telling me how she feels like an ATM for the family, how she's lonely and not taken seriously by others; things that a husband have to deal with, not a child.
So anyway, my sisters began to extended family members about what happened in our house when they were young and also of what happened to me. Like me, it probably took them years to unshame themselves and flip the culpability unto the abusers. It created a scandal I think in the extended family, although always very hush hush, as is usual in small rural places.
My parents probably got a word of what my sisters told about them and then when my oldest sister got her first child, it was actually my parents who stopped talking to them. They never told me why they stopped talking to my sisters, but we figured it out. For some reason that enraged my father and forced my mother to stop talking to them but not to me. After a few years I got tired of seeing them trying to play nice and burning bridges after bridges with other family members and family friends, and I decided to cut them off. Although my sisters never made any kind of ultimatum, I could see how my parents were throwing a wrench between my and my sisters by only talking to me and not to them.
There are more details to this sordid story. It really could make for a full TV drama episode; these people love drama and being the victim. Don't fall for their game.
>Once I applied for a job that required a high security clearance. I had to write "all the traumas of your childhood and your adolescence".
Huh? I don't recall those questions on my clearance application. Was this a SF-86?
Huh? I don't recall those questions on my clearance application. Was this a SF-86?
Canadian stuff ;)
To be honest I would have been deeply uncomfortable with that. My SF-86 was invasive enough and I later found out that information had been leaked in a hack of OPM. I would have absolutely imploded if it included background from my childhood.
From my point of view, the government already has most of my most personal stuff due to my time to CPS and what my parents told them (and possibly made up).
Anyway I've handwritten it, I guess the rest is up to their security lol.
But yeah, that's terrifying if people that know me would have it; information is power after all.
Anyway I've handwritten it, I guess the rest is up to their security lol.
But yeah, that's terrifying if people that know me would have it; information is power after all.
Often, traumatized individuals traumatize their children. So it’s at least a somewhat self perpetuating phenomenon that may not decay away over generations. As a result, it seems reasonable to assume that different groups could have different prevalences of traumatized individuals.
How does the prevalence of traumatized individuals characterize a society as a whole? For example, it seems that a society where the majority are traumatized should be fundamentally different from a society where a minority are traumatized.
How does the prevalence of traumatized individuals characterize a society as a whole? For example, it seems that a society where the majority are traumatized should be fundamentally different from a society where a minority are traumatized.
My mom keeps talking about how much she wants grandchildren. My brother decided the trauma stops with him, so until he's sure he wouldn't repeat any of dad's harmful behaviors, he doesn't want to have kids. I'm only just now getting to a point where I've done enough work that anyone wouldn't be crazy to want to date me, but I'm doing it at an age where biological kids are less and less likely.
So I guess that's one thing that might characterize society: Lots of frustrated would-be grandparents.
So I guess that's one thing that might characterize society: Lots of frustrated would-be grandparents.
> So I guess that's one thing that might characterize society: Lots of frustrated would-be grandparents.
Perhaps also many alienated grandparents, confused, hurt, and angry that their children don't want them involved in their grandchildren's lives.
https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20230620/dealing-with-a...
https://www.alienatedgrandparentsanonymous.com/
Perhaps also many alienated grandparents, confused, hurt, and angry that their children don't want them involved in their grandchildren's lives.
https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20230620/dealing-with-a...
https://www.alienatedgrandparentsanonymous.com/
The list of "Reasons for Estrangement" in that first article is sorely lacking in anything that acknowledges the parent might be at fault.
It really does seem like the sort of article an estranged parent would find extremely satisfying to read. Remember, it's someone else turning your child against you!
Estranged parents seem to think everything was fine and then suddenly changed, and usually "for no reason."
I had four friends, separately, individually, reach out to me and say, "I know this isn't actually my business, and I wonder whether I should even say anything, but why does your dad think it's OK to talk to you like he does?"
I then spent three more years telling him each time he belittled me or spoke to me like a child that he could either speak to me with the common decency every single person deserves just by virtue of being human, or I would prevent him from speaking to me altogether.
It was never fine, but growing up in his house, I never knew any different was possible. I thought that was just how I deserved to be treated.
It took other people to tell me it wasn't OK, and had never been OK, but I guarantee if you ask him, he will tell you he has no idea what happened, and will certainly blame anyone but himself.
I had four friends, separately, individually, reach out to me and say, "I know this isn't actually my business, and I wonder whether I should even say anything, but why does your dad think it's OK to talk to you like he does?"
I then spent three more years telling him each time he belittled me or spoke to me like a child that he could either speak to me with the common decency every single person deserves just by virtue of being human, or I would prevent him from speaking to me altogether.
It was never fine, but growing up in his house, I never knew any different was possible. I thought that was just how I deserved to be treated.
It took other people to tell me it wasn't OK, and had never been OK, but I guarantee if you ask him, he will tell you he has no idea what happened, and will certainly blame anyone but himself.
I think there's a lot of self-selection going on with the cathegory of estranged parents who blame their kids. If you're the sort of person to reflect on your behaviour, take responsibility and change it because you realise you're hurting others, you're a lot less likely to end up with estranged kids in the first place.
If it does happen anyway, you're probably also less likely to be self-soothing with listicles about how it's definitely the fault of your ungrateful kids and whoever turned them against you.
I hope you're in a better spot now, and I'm glad you found the strength to demand better.
If it does happen anyway, you're probably also less likely to be self-soothing with listicles about how it's definitely the fault of your ungrateful kids and whoever turned them against you.
I hope you're in a better spot now, and I'm glad you found the strength to demand better.
There wouldn't be any way to collect this data, but if you could, I guarantee the overwhelming majority of "apologies" from parent to child over the course of these relationships would start with, "I'm sorry you..." rather than, "I'm sorry I..."
I'd be pleasantly surprised to find out sincere apologies ever happened.
I'd be pleasantly surprised to find out sincere apologies ever happened.
I would probably try talking to my parents again if they actually gave me an apology for something they did and left it at a straight owning of their error.
In my family of origin apologies usually started by owning something the apologizer did, but invariably moved on to a "but" that made the recipient the butt of the apology.
In my family of origin apologies usually started by owning something the apologizer did, but invariably moved on to a "but" that made the recipient the butt of the apology.
This is the reason I have a relationship with my mom and not my dad. She did eventually try to understand why she thought the things she did were OK at the time she did them (and that's actually been helpful for me to understand over time), but she began by apologizing and saying anything that affected me the way it did was wrong for her to do, even if she didn't realize it at the time.
"Sex and the Psyche: The Truth About Our Most Secret Fantasies", Brett Kahr.
Silly title, but looks like a serious bit of work. Big study in the UK about ten years ago - 50k people receiving questionnaires, can't remember how many people for closer study, 50 for full day interviews.
Conclusion : sexual fantasy is a coping mechanism for trauma.
Fantasy is a recapitulation, often modified to make it more bearable, of the original trauma.
Fantasy varies between individuals, because trauma varies. Fantasy superficially varies enormously for an individual, but there is always a core theme.
Silly title, but looks like a serious bit of work. Big study in the UK about ten years ago - 50k people receiving questionnaires, can't remember how many people for closer study, 50 for full day interviews.
Conclusion : sexual fantasy is a coping mechanism for trauma.
Fantasy is a recapitulation, often modified to make it more bearable, of the original trauma.
Fantasy varies between individuals, because trauma varies. Fantasy superficially varies enormously for an individual, but there is always a core theme.
Some here may find Pete Walker and his work around "C-PTSD" useful.
https://pete-walker.com/fourFs_TraumaTypologyComplexPTSD.htm
https://pete-walker.com/fourFs_TraumaTypologyComplexPTSD.htm
There are many types of early relational trauma, but I strongly recommend the (audio)book: "Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents: How to Heal from Distant, Rejecting, or Self-Involved Parents" by Lindsay Gibson, to anyone who thinks they might benefit from reading a book with that title.
I get that's a weird judge-a-book-by-its-cover metric, but it is excellent for working through and understanding those relationships.
I get that's a weird judge-a-book-by-its-cover metric, but it is excellent for working through and understanding those relationships.
Of all the books mentioned here, I can’t recommend it highly enough. (And seeing a therapist!)
Are children more traumatized now than in the past? Seems like the past was harder on children.
Most of the research on child sexual abuse in the US shows that rates have dropped by about 50% since the 1970s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201120/ search for "Evidence for a Decline in Physical and Sexual Abuse"
(searched for that to post this, and they cite %60 since the 1990s).
Freud himself discovered a tremendous amount of horrible abuse in his patients; depending on the culture, most people just turn a blind eye. People that haven't experienced it and recovered from it a bit are really good at not believing how common it is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201120/ search for "Evidence for a Decline in Physical and Sexual Abuse"
(searched for that to post this, and they cite %60 since the 1990s).
Freud himself discovered a tremendous amount of horrible abuse in his patients; depending on the culture, most people just turn a blind eye. People that haven't experienced it and recovered from it a bit are really good at not believing how common it is.
> not believing how common it is.
I knew someone that was abused as a child. Had trouble with drugs and went into rehab. He said that ALL the people he met in rehab had been abused.
I knew someone that was abused as a child. Had trouble with drugs and went into rehab. He said that ALL the people he met in rehab had been abused.
A friend who is counselor and head priest at a girls’ Catholic school thinks it’s a large factor behind the childhood obesity epidemic too. Not just sexual abuse but childhood trauma in general leading to food as a coping mechanism.
His offhand theory is that the increase in the prevalence of restaurants and hyperpalatable foods gave people an outlet to feel safe (a third place in public where the whole family goes and acts their best) and the hyperpalatable food gave an easy and cheap dopamine boost during hard times leading to a spiral.
His offhand theory is that the increase in the prevalence of restaurants and hyperpalatable foods gave people an outlet to feel safe (a third place in public where the whole family goes and acts their best) and the hyperpalatable food gave an easy and cheap dopamine boost during hard times leading to a spiral.
It really is a silent crisis and difficult to get a hold on the scale of it. To the point where it feels like everyone has some kind of trauma, but that might just be the circles I'm in.
As someone who's spent 26 years in GA and met many folks also in AA and NA, I estimate that at least 80% have had childhood trauma. True for me, true for my eldest child.
True in prison as well. The setting doesn't encouraging grappling with it in those terms like rehab does. But it's easy to see anyway.
> People that haven't experienced it and recovered from it a bit are really good at not believing how common it is.
Also, for people who have experienced it, it's often the last thing they'd ever want to talk about. With anyone, including people they are really close to.
There's a good chance you could have a close personal friend or even your partner and never know they had gone through something like that.
Also, for people who have experienced it, it's often the last thing they'd ever want to talk about. With anyone, including people they are really close to.
There's a good chance you could have a close personal friend or even your partner and never know they had gone through something like that.
> it's often the last thing they'd ever want to talk about. With anyone, including people they are really close to.
'Get over it' is the most common response. That's why they shut up about it. People who are close to them are only close because of something positive that is being offered. Nobody wants to deal with anyone else's issues.
'Get over it' is the most common response. That's why they shut up about it. People who are close to them are only close because of something positive that is being offered. Nobody wants to deal with anyone else's issues.
I'm really glad to see courageous people changing the trend on this one, though I hope it continues to be an invitation to others to share, not a demand.
These kinds of things fester in darkness and loneliness. I think bringing them out into the light where we can find out we're not alone is helping.
These kinds of things fester in darkness and loneliness. I think bringing them out into the light where we can find out we're not alone is helping.
I have read Gabor Mate's works on the subject. I think he would say that more children are traumatized today. Whether they are traumatized more deeply is another matter.
The earlier trauma happens, the more amplified the effect is. Sometime in the 1950s it became a common parenting approach in the US at least to "not coddle children". That creates trauma for a sensitive child to not have their emotional needs met (an insensitive child may be just fine). There are different degrees of trauma- others that fight wars may experience a much deeper trauma later in life. The trauma to the ignored baby is not as traumatic of an event, but the baby does not have any abilities to cope and the effects are amplified in early developmental stages.
There is less community today to help with the coping process and emotionally distant parenting styles also make coping harder. And there is less religion today- religion both provided community and sometimes specifically helps people deal with trauma.
Trauma can be generational- someone that suffers trauma is much more likely to have difficulties raising their children. Consider someone that survived war but lost their home and witnessed horrors. They may turn to drugs to cope with the psychological pain. Being drug dependent, they have difficulty raising their own children. Those children don't have their emotional needs met, and a cycle of trauma can continue.
From Mate's point of view addiction rates would probably be one way to measure the trauma of society. Drug addiction is a way of coping with severe psychological pain. Drug overdosing is becoming a leading killer in some age groups.
The earlier trauma happens, the more amplified the effect is. Sometime in the 1950s it became a common parenting approach in the US at least to "not coddle children". That creates trauma for a sensitive child to not have their emotional needs met (an insensitive child may be just fine). There are different degrees of trauma- others that fight wars may experience a much deeper trauma later in life. The trauma to the ignored baby is not as traumatic of an event, but the baby does not have any abilities to cope and the effects are amplified in early developmental stages.
There is less community today to help with the coping process and emotionally distant parenting styles also make coping harder. And there is less religion today- religion both provided community and sometimes specifically helps people deal with trauma.
Trauma can be generational- someone that suffers trauma is much more likely to have difficulties raising their children. Consider someone that survived war but lost their home and witnessed horrors. They may turn to drugs to cope with the psychological pain. Being drug dependent, they have difficulty raising their own children. Those children don't have their emotional needs met, and a cycle of trauma can continue.
From Mate's point of view addiction rates would probably be one way to measure the trauma of society. Drug addiction is a way of coping with severe psychological pain. Drug overdosing is becoming a leading killer in some age groups.
[deleted]
The past was harder.
We generally have more resources and knowledge now. People tend to want to raise the bar when that becomes possible.
When kids suffered or died because humans lacked food security, reliable medical treatments etc, it was also generally not really the parent's fault. Knowing you could have been treated better and your parents/the world just didn't actually care about you is scarring in ways that "No one has enough." aren't.
We generally have more resources and knowledge now. People tend to want to raise the bar when that becomes possible.
When kids suffered or died because humans lacked food security, reliable medical treatments etc, it was also generally not really the parent's fault. Knowing you could have been treated better and your parents/the world just didn't actually care about you is scarring in ways that "No one has enough." aren't.
Plus, everyone is in it together when no one has enough. Once you get to "some people could have enough at the expense of other people," victim/perpetrator dynamics show up, but when no one does, you're suffering together.
Abuse of children is isolating for the child victim in a way that suffering hardship as a family unit or community isn't. There's no sense of "I'm as safe as it gets here, at home, with these people (even if that's not very safe)." There is no place of feeling even relative safety, no sense that anyone is even trying to care for or defend you.
Abuse of children is isolating for the child victim in a way that suffering hardship as a family unit or community isn't. There's no sense of "I'm as safe as it gets here, at home, with these people (even if that's not very safe)." There is no place of feeling even relative safety, no sense that anyone is even trying to care for or defend you.
One factor might be family size. Purely anecdotal, but I have a friend who grew up in an extremely abusive household and said directly to me that the only reason he thinks he survived his situation was because he had 4 other siblings and they all supported each other during the difficult times.
Another consideration: could it be that with more children, in an abusive household the abuse is typically spreaded out to more children, so that each individual child gets less abuse than in a smaller abusive household?
Anecdotal, but I think it's that one of the children gets the brunt of it and the others adjust. In my case, my elder brother had it the roughest, also since my parents were young and it was their first; I "compensated" for his more rebellious behaviour by not doing all the things he did "wrong". There's also something at my ex partner's case but I can't speak for her, but I can say that even though she got it worst, all her siblings ended up messed up in some way.
Every kid hands up having a separate childhood even in the same house, because the caregivers/abusers will change over time. Often one kid tends to take the brunt of the abuse, and the family roles end up reinforcing that.
My brother and I talk a lot about this, how we're only 5 years apart, but the first 5 years of my childhood and the last 5 of his are full of completely different types of abuse, and we weren't really treated the same during the years we were home together. The worst things that happened to me happened before he was old enough to form memories, and his were after I left the house.
Mine is 2 years younger but it resulted in post traumatic stress and high dissociation for me, and not nearly as bad effects for my sibling. We were treated different, had different roles, we are different in that I’m neurodivergent and he is not, and also he had a much more available social group of his age.
I think it’s more visible now, but as well, I wonder if it’s just that we have more leisure time to actually worry about / deal with it.
Personally I think every child needs some sort of effective therapy to help heal the trauma of their formative years.
I use trauma freely here, there’s quite a big difference between someone who was bullied a couple of times and is naturally quite resilient vs someone who was mercilessly bullied for years on end pushing them to the brink of life.
I classify both as trauma, very different degrees though.
As well, people react very differently to similar events.
Personally I think every child needs some sort of effective therapy to help heal the trauma of their formative years.
I use trauma freely here, there’s quite a big difference between someone who was bullied a couple of times and is naturally quite resilient vs someone who was mercilessly bullied for years on end pushing them to the brink of life.
I classify both as trauma, very different degrees though.
As well, people react very differently to similar events.
The effects of trauma are not new. What's new is we have a deeper understanding of how it comes about, what the long-term effects are on both an individual and societal level, and what can be done to prevent or remedy it.
we also talk a big game about caring about it but then still shove traumatized people to the margins.
Like honestly, should we prevent suicides then continue treating people the way they were treated pre attempt?
Weird idea of empathy.
Like honestly, should we prevent suicides then continue treating people the way they were treated pre attempt?
Weird idea of empathy.
Who is we? You talk like there is some hypocrisy here but you’re treating all people as one person. Mental health researchers and workers advocate for more support for people across the board. Politicians don’t give a shit because their constituents, on the whole, don’t either.
I have powerful anecdotal hypocrisy from the closest people in my life.
They work in mental health, but intentionally to a degree much higher than neglect, and over recent and long periods of time: kick people while they’re down, not limited to me.
They work in mental health, but intentionally to a degree much higher than neglect, and over recent and long periods of time: kick people while they’re down, not limited to me.
I don't know anything about your experiences so don't take this as an attempt to defend them but I've been told that the mental health field has a substantial amount of people who suffered or suffer from mental health issues and to some degree their pursuit of the career is an attempt to understand themselves better.
My mom is an alcoholic and also formerly a psychologist and I’ve heard that from her too. Her early childhood bore many of the traumatic experiences that this article warns damage childrens’ brains.
> Are children more traumatized now than in the past? Seems like the past was harder on children.
My guess is that in the past child mortality was higher and children traumatised enough just didn't survived. And because of such high mortality no one cared to find out why.
My guess is that in the past child mortality was higher and children traumatised enough just didn't survived. And because of such high mortality no one cared to find out why.
I think it was probably worse during the industrial era and probably a lot better during hunter gatherer times. Not sure about agricultural times.
My hunch around childhood is we’re doing better with young kids (due to awareness around this stuff). But we don’t give teenagers the independence they need to develop.
If you read about the history of childhood I think it's clear that children were immeasurably more traumatized in the past. The concept of child abuse barely existed, and the relational needs of children weren't recognized at all.
That raises the question of why contemporary attention to trauma is so elevated, if the problem is actually smaller now than it used to be. There's an easy answer though: this is first moment in (recent) history where we finally have a chance to begin dealing with it.
That raises the question of why contemporary attention to trauma is so elevated, if the problem is actually smaller now than it used to be. There's an easy answer though: this is first moment in (recent) history where we finally have a chance to begin dealing with it.
Divorce is a massive cause of trauma and increasing in the west
I organized a large group of trauma experts last week (church pastors), and although they were amazing and had clearly overcome trauma; residual selfishness and power grabbing meant a child got ignored
The same last night: a bible study with the homeless. A happy and peaceful place, though one member was throwing trauma bombs
There's not a simple switch, though having lived in war zones and done churches of, for instance Syrian refugees, unconditional love of God, and letting trauma be presented in the middle of that is deeply powerful
I organized a large group of trauma experts last week (church pastors), and although they were amazing and had clearly overcome trauma; residual selfishness and power grabbing meant a child got ignored
The same last night: a bible study with the homeless. A happy and peaceful place, though one member was throwing trauma bombs
There's not a simple switch, though having lived in war zones and done churches of, for instance Syrian refugees, unconditional love of God, and letting trauma be presented in the middle of that is deeply powerful
> Divorce is a massive cause of trauma and increasing in the west
Not true that it's increasing. It peaked in the 70s and has decreased since.
[1] https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/lo...
Not true that it's increasing. It peaked in the 70s and has decreased since.
[1] https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/lo...
"Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history"
"The share of children born outside of marriage has increased substantially in almost all OECD countries"
https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces
But you are right divorce rates vary, for instance decreasing post covid. I was thinking on the century scale. But also percentage of people entering stable commitment, and so even the possibility of divorce is much lower
"The share of children born outside of marriage has increased substantially in almost all OECD countries"
https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces
But you are right divorce rates vary, for instance decreasing post covid. I was thinking on the century scale. But also percentage of people entering stable commitment, and so even the possibility of divorce is much lower
> "The share of children born outside of marriage has increased substantially in almost all OECD countries"
This seems like it's unrelated to divorce.
I don't think it's fair to look at divorces on a century basis given that no fault divorce only became possible in the United States in 1969 - before that you needed to prove there was some sort of abuse or infidelity involved.
It certainly becomes more complicated to try and draw trends, and impossible to assume it was stronger family value that held them together before that point - in fact, the peak in the early 70s indicates that once it became possible it was used with gusto.
This seems like it's unrelated to divorce.
I don't think it's fair to look at divorces on a century basis given that no fault divorce only became possible in the United States in 1969 - before that you needed to prove there was some sort of abuse or infidelity involved.
It certainly becomes more complicated to try and draw trends, and impossible to assume it was stronger family value that held them together before that point - in fact, the peak in the early 70s indicates that once it became possible it was used with gusto.
Children were definitely abused more in the past, but were they traumatised more?
In the past much more than today, kids had defined roles and work to do in families. The stronger sense of identity may have lessened the trauma. As may the knowledge that their peers in neighboring familes were going through the exact same things.
In the past much more than today, kids had defined roles and work to do in families. The stronger sense of identity may have lessened the trauma. As may the knowledge that their peers in neighboring familes were going through the exact same things.
[deleted]
Trauma isn't as simple as more worse things -> bigger/more trauma.
Under certain circumstances people can experiences horrible stuff with barely any ill effect while other times really trivial small things can totally break them.
Just having one stable positive relationship with an adult can make a child significantly more resilient while the child that lacks that relationship might break at a minor problem. There are many factors that determine resilience and it can vary greatly from person to person. And it is situational. Someone might be a hardened war veteran having seen it all but totally break when seeing a child getting a minor wound.
So children today might be objectively better off than in the past but it does not necessary mean their struggles are less valid, they are just different. So hard to say whether they are less traumatized or not, maybe a little bit but mostly probably just in different ways.
But yeah, the main thing is that we are much better at recognizing signs of trauma these days and people can be more open of their struggles so it might seem like there is more traumatized people when probably there is the same amount or less.
Under certain circumstances people can experiences horrible stuff with barely any ill effect while other times really trivial small things can totally break them.
Just having one stable positive relationship with an adult can make a child significantly more resilient while the child that lacks that relationship might break at a minor problem. There are many factors that determine resilience and it can vary greatly from person to person. And it is situational. Someone might be a hardened war veteran having seen it all but totally break when seeing a child getting a minor wound.
So children today might be objectively better off than in the past but it does not necessary mean their struggles are less valid, they are just different. So hard to say whether they are less traumatized or not, maybe a little bit but mostly probably just in different ways.
But yeah, the main thing is that we are much better at recognizing signs of trauma these days and people can be more open of their struggles so it might seem like there is more traumatized people when probably there is the same amount or less.
Probably more traumatised, but talking about it was much more socially unacceptable (and even potentially dangerous; in many countries involuntary institutionalisation on extremely flimsy basis was very much a thing until the late 20th century, especially for women).
As with many things like this, getting hard numbers would be extremely difficult because it's the sort of thing where peoples' inclination to answer surveys honestly changes with social norms.
As with many things like this, getting hard numbers would be extremely difficult because it's the sort of thing where peoples' inclination to answer surveys honestly changes with social norms.
They will say the same thing in 100 years.
Who says that? I think it’s only a question from the commenter above.
It's the thesis of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature. It's not an uncommon sentiment. Maybe we run in different circles.
Attachment Theory is an interesting subject on the matter.
A few useful books which helped me with both understanding and healing (there're still problems, but it gets better):
1. Love Sense, Sue Johnson.
2. The Power of Attachment, Diane Pooler Heller.
3. Understanding Disorganized Attachment: Theory and Practice for Working with Children and Adults, David, Shemmings and Yvonne Shemmings.
4. The Body Keeps the Score, Bessel van der Kolk.
5. Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love, Sue Johnson.
6. "Focusing" practice, Eugene Gendlin.
7. How to survive the most critical 5 seconds of your life, Tim Larkin.
The first four lay down foundations, explaining the mechanics, possible solutions, will help in navigating, filtering and planning the healing.
The 5th and 6th are actual healing, former for couples, the latter mostly for individuals.
The last one is about a wisdom of violence embedded into the body of affected individuals which is likely suppressed by the rational part of the mind.
A few useful books which helped me with both understanding and healing (there're still problems, but it gets better):
1. Love Sense, Sue Johnson.
2. The Power of Attachment, Diane Pooler Heller.
3. Understanding Disorganized Attachment: Theory and Practice for Working with Children and Adults, David, Shemmings and Yvonne Shemmings.
4. The Body Keeps the Score, Bessel van der Kolk.
5. Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love, Sue Johnson.
6. "Focusing" practice, Eugene Gendlin.
7. How to survive the most critical 5 seconds of your life, Tim Larkin.
The first four lay down foundations, explaining the mechanics, possible solutions, will help in navigating, filtering and planning the healing.
The 5th and 6th are actual healing, former for couples, the latter mostly for individuals.
The last one is about a wisdom of violence embedded into the body of affected individuals which is likely suppressed by the rational part of the mind.
Could you summarize some practical takeaways from all these books? To be honest I've become a bit skeptical of how much this sort of stuff helps. From what I see, our society has become much more well-versed in all this psychology-therapy-trauma material in the last 20 years, yet despite this we're taking more anti-depressants and seeing more therapy than ever. Mentally and spiritually we seem to be doing worse than ever before, especially kids.
Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff. I can honestly say the people I know who are more knowledgeable in all this psychology-trauma material seem to be the least well adjusted. Conversely, my more religious friends (Catholic, Muslim) seem happier and more resilient psychologically. Maybe it's just correlation. Maybe if we didn't have all this academic literature on trauma becoming mainstream people would be doing even worse. But it also seems possible that over-analyzing and over-pathologizing 'trauma' can have exactly the opposite effect we hope it to have.
Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff. I can honestly say the people I know who are more knowledgeable in all this psychology-trauma material seem to be the least well adjusted. Conversely, my more religious friends (Catholic, Muslim) seem happier and more resilient psychologically. Maybe it's just correlation. Maybe if we didn't have all this academic literature on trauma becoming mainstream people would be doing even worse. But it also seems possible that over-analyzing and over-pathologizing 'trauma' can have exactly the opposite effect we hope it to have.
You might think it's getting by, but you've got no idea of how much damage this attitude unwittingly propagates the trauma on succeeding generations.
I've seen this firsthand in my own family, a family beset with undiagnosed ADHD and trauma from a violent patriarch, who was no doubt subject to the same abuse, lying about his age to join armies on BOTH sides of the conflict in WW2 to escape and eventually emigrate.
As for the difference in psychological resilience: it's more much more likely those who have been traumatised are seeking understanding, rather than healthy then traumatised by their curiosity. Conversely, it's been shown religious people are, as a whole, more psychologically resilient, largely due to community and the accompanying support system it provides. However, there is also a strong element of suppression within those communities, which directly contributes to the very trauma of which I speak.
If there is no communication, the abused, very often, become the abusers. And so the wheel turns.
I've seen this firsthand in my own family, a family beset with undiagnosed ADHD and trauma from a violent patriarch, who was no doubt subject to the same abuse, lying about his age to join armies on BOTH sides of the conflict in WW2 to escape and eventually emigrate.
As for the difference in psychological resilience: it's more much more likely those who have been traumatised are seeking understanding, rather than healthy then traumatised by their curiosity. Conversely, it's been shown religious people are, as a whole, more psychologically resilient, largely due to community and the accompanying support system it provides. However, there is also a strong element of suppression within those communities, which directly contributes to the very trauma of which I speak.
If there is no communication, the abused, very often, become the abusers. And so the wheel turns.
> it's more much more likely those who have been traumatised are seeking understanding, rather than healthy then traumatised by their curiosity
The fact that trauma is now everywhere sort of de-legitimizes it to the point where there's no way of knowing in the average case. Also the fact that it's essentially a business at this point
> but you've got no idea of how much damage this attitude unwittingly propagates the trauma on succeeding generations
Sounds like you're saying: become emotionally pure or else. Personally I'd rather have "trauma" than play this little head game. And imo the younger generations will be better off, on average, not playing it either
If anything, we're doing significantly more damage by teaching upcoming generations to trust the pharmaceutical industry
The fact that trauma is now everywhere sort of de-legitimizes it to the point where there's no way of knowing in the average case. Also the fact that it's essentially a business at this point
> but you've got no idea of how much damage this attitude unwittingly propagates the trauma on succeeding generations
Sounds like you're saying: become emotionally pure or else. Personally I'd rather have "trauma" than play this little head game. And imo the younger generations will be better off, on average, not playing it either
If anything, we're doing significantly more damage by teaching upcoming generations to trust the pharmaceutical industry
> The fact that trauma is now everywhere sort of de-legitimizes it to the point where there's no way of knowing in the average case.
I can tell you that trauma is very real for the person experiencing it, and it's this kind of flippant dismissal that stops people from seeking help.
Trauma everywhere, in what fashion? Perhaps because more people are talking about it, more people are getting the courage to talk about it.
> Sounds like you're saying: become emotionally pure or else.
Emotionally pure? What does that even mean? It was phrased as a warning, because I've experienced this attitude within my family, and seen the damage it's caused, and continues to cause. Eventually, the damaged start damaging others, people put their hands over the ears pretending nothing's happening, and the cycle continues.
> Personally I'd rather have "trauma" than play this little head game.
What head game is being played?
> If anything, we're doing significantly more damage by teaching upcoming generations to trust the pharmaceutical industry.
The argument I was making had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry. It was about how trauma gets suppressed, and how that can institute a cycle of trauma, so be wary of how you approach it. It's all about taking care of people.
I can tell you that trauma is very real for the person experiencing it, and it's this kind of flippant dismissal that stops people from seeking help.
Trauma everywhere, in what fashion? Perhaps because more people are talking about it, more people are getting the courage to talk about it.
> Sounds like you're saying: become emotionally pure or else.
Emotionally pure? What does that even mean? It was phrased as a warning, because I've experienced this attitude within my family, and seen the damage it's caused, and continues to cause. Eventually, the damaged start damaging others, people put their hands over the ears pretending nothing's happening, and the cycle continues.
> Personally I'd rather have "trauma" than play this little head game.
What head game is being played?
> If anything, we're doing significantly more damage by teaching upcoming generations to trust the pharmaceutical industry.
The argument I was making had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry. It was about how trauma gets suppressed, and how that can institute a cycle of trauma, so be wary of how you approach it. It's all about taking care of people.
> Trauma everywhere, in what fashion? Perhaps because more people are talking about it, more people are getting the courage to talk about it.
Social contagion is a thing. Just because more people are taking about something doesn't mean it's true
> Eventually, the damaged start damaging others, people put their hands over the ears pretending nothing's happening, and the cycle continues.
It doesn't take therapy or a bunch of trauma ideology to know that hurting people is wrong. Someone could have a perfect upbringing and still be a piece of shit. Alternatively someone could have a shitty upbringing and be a good person. The latter case doesn't require the person to "come to terms with their trauma" in the methodology that gets dictated to them by this decade's version of psychology
> The argument I was making had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry.
Maybe not directly, I was suggesting a more productive alternative than the one in the comment I was responding to
Social contagion is a thing. Just because more people are taking about something doesn't mean it's true
> Eventually, the damaged start damaging others, people put their hands over the ears pretending nothing's happening, and the cycle continues.
It doesn't take therapy or a bunch of trauma ideology to know that hurting people is wrong. Someone could have a perfect upbringing and still be a piece of shit. Alternatively someone could have a shitty upbringing and be a good person. The latter case doesn't require the person to "come to terms with their trauma" in the methodology that gets dictated to them by this decade's version of psychology
> The argument I was making had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry.
Maybe not directly, I was suggesting a more productive alternative than the one in the comment I was responding to
Social contagion affects girls and women much more than boys and men.
> It doesn't take therapy or a bunch of trauma ideology to know that hurting people is wrong.
> Social contagion affects girls and women much more than boys and men.
How is this related?
> And why do they struggle to stop before therapy?
Sounds like you're implying that they stop after therapy also
Do they, long term? Is it because of therapy or because courts/law enforcement are involved?
> why do the abused so frequently become the abusers?
I'm not saying that abuse does not make people more likely to abuse, I'm saying that therapy alone does not reliably make them better people
How is this related?
> And why do they struggle to stop before therapy?
Sounds like you're implying that they stop after therapy also
Do they, long term? Is it because of therapy or because courts/law enforcement are involved?
> why do the abused so frequently become the abusers?
I'm not saying that abuse does not make people more likely to abuse, I'm saying that therapy alone does not reliably make them better people
I suspect that your anecdata results from the community that organized religion engenders. Irrespective of all the criticisms leveled at religion, the simple fact of the matter is that if you feel like you belong, that your struggles are not unique, and that you can talk to people who have come through similar struggles apparently intact, you will likely heal from the experience faster and more completely. That the religion can provide some explanation for why you had to experience the trauma is a neat side effect.
The veteran suicide rate is an evergreen cause of concern, but one of the major stories amongst veterans is that they leave this community where they had a very clearly defined role, with very clearly defined acceptable modes of behavior, and when you leave, all of that is stripped away. The sudden absence of community and sense of purpose is, for many veterans, an unbridgeable gap.
There absolutely are insidious downsides to such tight-knit communities (especially in response to threats to the community - vis how often the victim of clerical sexual abuse encounters further attacks from members of the church). But e.g. religious organizations have persisted for so long because there's a sort of cost-benefit analysis occurring, where the community decides that so long as the community continues to function, its OK that a few members of the community are sacrificed to protect it.
To be clear, its not like PTSD is a new thing. Catatonia, combat fatigue, etc, are stress responses that have been recognized for centuries. Its just that only fairly recently we've concluded that hey, maybe writing people off when they hit that point is a bad thing, and maybe we should invest some time in helping people before they reach that state.
The veteran suicide rate is an evergreen cause of concern, but one of the major stories amongst veterans is that they leave this community where they had a very clearly defined role, with very clearly defined acceptable modes of behavior, and when you leave, all of that is stripped away. The sudden absence of community and sense of purpose is, for many veterans, an unbridgeable gap.
There absolutely are insidious downsides to such tight-knit communities (especially in response to threats to the community - vis how often the victim of clerical sexual abuse encounters further attacks from members of the church). But e.g. religious organizations have persisted for so long because there's a sort of cost-benefit analysis occurring, where the community decides that so long as the community continues to function, its OK that a few members of the community are sacrificed to protect it.
To be clear, its not like PTSD is a new thing. Catatonia, combat fatigue, etc, are stress responses that have been recognized for centuries. Its just that only fairly recently we've concluded that hey, maybe writing people off when they hit that point is a bad thing, and maybe we should invest some time in helping people before they reach that state.
You asked for practical take aways, so I'll say this:
Get good at communicating and being vulnerable. I know online spaces will tell you this is dangerous, and that your partner might leave you. Someone with this sort of background needs to be 'seen', and loved for who they are, and the only way that happens is if they truly know you. Second, realize that your partner is not the sole source of all your feelings about them. You're seeing the world through trauma colored glasses, and it often helps to take a step back, take a breath and ask yourself why you're feeling what your feeling rather than acting on it immediately.
Get good at communicating and being vulnerable. I know online spaces will tell you this is dangerous, and that your partner might leave you. Someone with this sort of background needs to be 'seen', and loved for who they are, and the only way that happens is if they truly know you. Second, realize that your partner is not the sole source of all your feelings about them. You're seeing the world through trauma colored glasses, and it often helps to take a step back, take a breath and ask yourself why you're feeling what your feeling rather than acting on it immediately.
> I know online spaces will tell you [being vulnerable] is dangerous, and that your partner might leave you.
The possibility of being rejected by being vulnerable is definitional... It's not being vulnerable if there isn't the possibility of rejection, it's just being transparent. So yeah, being vulnerable is dangerous. You might get rejected. But then again, you might get accepted, too.
(This isn't a critique of the parent, it's more of a critique of what the "online spaces" allegedly say.)
The possibility of being rejected by being vulnerable is definitional... It's not being vulnerable if there isn't the possibility of rejection, it's just being transparent. So yeah, being vulnerable is dangerous. You might get rejected. But then again, you might get accepted, too.
(This isn't a critique of the parent, it's more of a critique of what the "online spaces" allegedly say.)
> Get good at communicating and being vulnerable.
Very good advice! (And the rest of your comment too)
Very good advice! (And the rest of your comment too)
Who says we’ve been getting by well?
People who learn not to trust as children retain that into adulthood. Thats the core issue with many problems. It’s even a driver for PTSD - not everyone goes to war or experiences something terrible and leaves with a disorder.
Consider 100 years ago it was acceptable to beat your wife. It was not considered socially unusual for a working class man to have his children underfed after drinking his salary away. Thats an example of how humans poorly cope with the inhumane conditions of industrial society.
Trauma is in the eyes of the beholder.
I’m part of a catholic community that is a loving and supportive place. I’m not a dogmatic or “good catholic” by any means, but I find inspiration and meditative comfort in prayer. And having gone through some horrific challenges in my life, my friends and family there have helped me get through. There’s no magic imo, your “tribe” will help you get through things.
People who learn not to trust as children retain that into adulthood. Thats the core issue with many problems. It’s even a driver for PTSD - not everyone goes to war or experiences something terrible and leaves with a disorder.
Consider 100 years ago it was acceptable to beat your wife. It was not considered socially unusual for a working class man to have his children underfed after drinking his salary away. Thats an example of how humans poorly cope with the inhumane conditions of industrial society.
Trauma is in the eyes of the beholder.
I’m part of a catholic community that is a loving and supportive place. I’m not a dogmatic or “good catholic” by any means, but I find inspiration and meditative comfort in prayer. And having gone through some horrific challenges in my life, my friends and family there have helped me get through. There’s no magic imo, your “tribe” will help you get through things.
> Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff.
In very different societies. Our societies have gradually become less and less like what we evolved to fit into: small groups, time out doors, lots of face to face contact with people you are close to etc.
Some past societies were pretty miserable for many people. I am pretty sure slaves had lots of trauma and other psychological problems, but not one cared. Even where people were cared about there were no consistent records kept so maybe we do not know.
> Conversely, my more religious friends (Catholic, Muslim) seem happier and more resilient psychologically.
I think religious faith and practices probably do help. However, that is not a practical solution because it is not something you can fake. You cannot just decide to believe something, and you may need faith rather than just belief to get the benefits. The benefits are a side effect of the aims of the religion (developing a relationship with God, achieving nirvana, etc.) and will not happen unless you are sincerely following the aim.
Religions have practices and ideas that help resilience, and sometimes those parallel ideas in psychology and therapy - but for the reasons above will not work out of context.
That is even without taking into account the possibility that (some) religious beliefs are true and, for example, God will (at least sometimes) answer a sincere prayer for the strength to cope with your problems. Maybe your Catholic and Muslim friends are receiving divine support - or just believing in a constant loving and perfect parental figure is a source of comfort that promotes resilience.
In very different societies. Our societies have gradually become less and less like what we evolved to fit into: small groups, time out doors, lots of face to face contact with people you are close to etc.
Some past societies were pretty miserable for many people. I am pretty sure slaves had lots of trauma and other psychological problems, but not one cared. Even where people were cared about there were no consistent records kept so maybe we do not know.
> Conversely, my more religious friends (Catholic, Muslim) seem happier and more resilient psychologically.
I think religious faith and practices probably do help. However, that is not a practical solution because it is not something you can fake. You cannot just decide to believe something, and you may need faith rather than just belief to get the benefits. The benefits are a side effect of the aims of the religion (developing a relationship with God, achieving nirvana, etc.) and will not happen unless you are sincerely following the aim.
Religions have practices and ideas that help resilience, and sometimes those parallel ideas in psychology and therapy - but for the reasons above will not work out of context.
That is even without taking into account the possibility that (some) religious beliefs are true and, for example, God will (at least sometimes) answer a sincere prayer for the strength to cope with your problems. Maybe your Catholic and Muslim friends are receiving divine support - or just believing in a constant loving and perfect parental figure is a source of comfort that promotes resilience.
Religious Faith and Belief are choices. They have to be because they are fundamentally about unprovable things. So in one sense they are absolutely practical. However if you don't want to choose a religion then it may not be practical for you. It is in no way the case though that Faith is something that just happens to you. It's a personal choice.
Of course not. Religion is a choice if one becomes religious as an adult. However, for the vast majority of religious people, they become religious at a young age, when they cannot make any choices.
You certainly have the choice whether to continue being religious as an adult. Also, there are plenty of children who reject religiosity (although that may not get a chance to express itself until high school / college)
I don't think it's a choice. If you don't believe something, no amount of trying to make yourself believe it is going to make it so. A whole lot of people raised in a religion who are now atheists can attest to the extreme mental turmoil trying to do so during the deconversion process can cause. You either believe, or don't believe in any given brand of supernatural unobservable phenomenon.
I wouldn't want to assume the details or the difficulty someone else has or is going through related to this.
What I have found helpful, when I went through something like this, is to distinguish between the "feeling" of certainty and the "choice" to put my faith in something. A lot of the time, we talk about "faith" and we conflate those two. I can choose to trust something and not feel confidence in it until after the fact. How much confidence I feel in a choice varies for a lot of reasons, but I may still choose to accept the risk and act on the little information I do have because I don't have better alternatives.
In that sense, you can choose what you believe. Or at least, you can choose what you put your faith in.
What I have found helpful, when I went through something like this, is to distinguish between the "feeling" of certainty and the "choice" to put my faith in something. A lot of the time, we talk about "faith" and we conflate those two. I can choose to trust something and not feel confidence in it until after the fact. How much confidence I feel in a choice varies for a lot of reasons, but I may still choose to accept the risk and act on the little information I do have because I don't have better alternatives.
In that sense, you can choose what you believe. Or at least, you can choose what you put your faith in.
Not provable to others. Many people are religious on the basis of religious experiences experiences, some on philosophical or other arguments that others find unconvincing. some even do not want to believe - CS Lewis described himself as 'the most dejected convert in England' for this reason.
For what it's worth, I'm mostly in agreement with you that contemporary therapy is overrated. I did have one quibble:
> Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff.
In fact, and this is especially true for men, the correct response to this line of reasoning is basically "well, actually, no they didn't." The genetic lineages of most men over the entirety of human history, are extinct - we are descended from the comparative few who aren't. For example Ötzi the iceman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi) has no living descendants. He is typical.
Not only that, but there is no reason to think that the surviving genetic lineages are remotely optimized for individual happiness, or for that matter individual industriousness or productivity (esp in the context of modern productive relations) or whatever other metric you want to measure people by.
All of which is to say, that even accounting for the fact that basically most people who ever lived have no living descendants, we just don't value, individually or collectively, even the attributes that would have been selected for among human populations in the bronze age, neolithic, whatever. So if we want to make those things happen (i.e. if we want people to be happy and productive) we need to create the conditions for it and we need to give them significant help in doing so, as well. That "significant help" is probably going to be something like what we call "therapy" today - though, as I mentioned above, I think contemporary therapeutic practices are doing a horrible job at it. But, there is a job to do there, IMO.
> Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff.
In fact, and this is especially true for men, the correct response to this line of reasoning is basically "well, actually, no they didn't." The genetic lineages of most men over the entirety of human history, are extinct - we are descended from the comparative few who aren't. For example Ötzi the iceman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi) has no living descendants. He is typical.
Not only that, but there is no reason to think that the surviving genetic lineages are remotely optimized for individual happiness, or for that matter individual industriousness or productivity (esp in the context of modern productive relations) or whatever other metric you want to measure people by.
All of which is to say, that even accounting for the fact that basically most people who ever lived have no living descendants, we just don't value, individually or collectively, even the attributes that would have been selected for among human populations in the bronze age, neolithic, whatever. So if we want to make those things happen (i.e. if we want people to be happy and productive) we need to create the conditions for it and we need to give them significant help in doing so, as well. That "significant help" is probably going to be something like what we call "therapy" today - though, as I mentioned above, I think contemporary therapeutic practices are doing a horrible job at it. But, there is a job to do there, IMO.
[deleted]
> my more religious friends (Catholic, Muslim)
Those religions mandate women to submit to the male or they are kicked out of the group. Of course things are more orderly when there is a chain of command and severe consequences (like losing your whole family) for demanding equality, asking questions, or questioning authority. Don't confuse the order for happiness. Ask a Muslim or Catholic what happens when you're gay, for example. Or review what the Churchs response was to child sexual abuse. In that case the social order actively contributed to more trauma!
Those religions mandate women to submit to the male or they are kicked out of the group. Of course things are more orderly when there is a chain of command and severe consequences (like losing your whole family) for demanding equality, asking questions, or questioning authority. Don't confuse the order for happiness. Ask a Muslim or Catholic what happens when you're gay, for example. Or review what the Churchs response was to child sexual abuse. In that case the social order actively contributed to more trauma!
> Somehow, humans managed to get by for thousands of years without any of this stuff.
By “humans” do you mean 50%, 75%, 90%, 99%, or 99.99% of the population?
By “got by” do you mean “lived mentally strong and resilient and healthy lives” or “just managed to do enough labor to not be ostracized and cut off from resources” or “maybe they couldn’t, but nobody wrote about or wanted to remember those people anyway” or “nobody had the vocabulary to describe their state or behavior as anything more than ‘unpleasant/unbecoming’”?
By “humans” do you mean 50%, 75%, 90%, 99%, or 99.99% of the population?
By “got by” do you mean “lived mentally strong and resilient and healthy lives” or “just managed to do enough labor to not be ostracized and cut off from resources” or “maybe they couldn’t, but nobody wrote about or wanted to remember those people anyway” or “nobody had the vocabulary to describe their state or behavior as anything more than ‘unpleasant/unbecoming’”?
Survival is not the same as thriving. Survival is the bottom rung on Maslow's hierarchy and below that is death.
Being versed in the terminology of a subject is not the same as being an adept practitioner.
The next few generations will become better practitioners while us graybeards (encompassing down to those in high school now) will suffer from the consequences of not receiving a better education in mental wellness and lacking the structural supports necessary for that.
There are still a lot of barriers to widespread mental wellness from taking root in American culture: homelessness, poverty, class, conservatism, regressive religions, et cetera.
Being versed in the terminology of a subject is not the same as being an adept practitioner.
The next few generations will become better practitioners while us graybeards (encompassing down to those in high school now) will suffer from the consequences of not receiving a better education in mental wellness and lacking the structural supports necessary for that.
There are still a lot of barriers to widespread mental wellness from taking root in American culture: homelessness, poverty, class, conservatism, regressive religions, et cetera.
You could be seeing correlation and not causation. People with psych issues want to get better. Those that are intellectually curious tend to read up on underlying causes and possible solutions.
I will say, that while I've read a lot of these sorts of books, they've mainly helped me identify my predispositions in temperament, my blind spots, etc. If you really press a therapist on the question, they will tell you that the only real way to 'treat' this is having loving and stable friends and romantic partners. I imagine being religious can help as it grants you easy access to a welcoming community, and frankly 'god' is the ultimate parental figure for those that believe.
I will say, that while I've read a lot of these sorts of books, they've mainly helped me identify my predispositions in temperament, my blind spots, etc. If you really press a therapist on the question, they will tell you that the only real way to 'treat' this is having loving and stable friends and romantic partners. I imagine being religious can help as it grants you easy access to a welcoming community, and frankly 'god' is the ultimate parental figure for those that believe.
Religion and psychiatry hardly seem opposed to me. It's popular to see Buddhism as actually a kind of therapy, although certainly not 100% correct, and that's sort of what prayer is meant to do too.
I prefer to keep them separate. The christian councilor I saw was very big into 'everything happens for a reason' and 'god has a plan' and given my background it turned my stomach. If what i went through was 'part of a plan' I have some very pointed questions for god when I meet him.
I hope the reason given was something like "people have free will and sometimes they use it to do evil" (which is why forgiveness is a thing), and that "God has a plan" includes a plan to heal and restore (for instance, Jesus saying "I came that [my sheep] may have abundant life" or "I came to destroy the works of the evil one"). If it's just "everything happens for a reason" but nothing more, that's basically saying "I don't know how to help you".
Possibly off-topic rant: If the reason is "it was God's will, because God is sovereign and therefore everything is his will", I think that is bordering on function heresy. Christianity (and life) has all these tensions: God is one, but God is three; Jesus is a man, but Jesus is God; God is sovereign, but he gave us free will. The temptation is to resolve the tension by cutting off one of the ends of the tension. The original heretics chopped off one of the ends of the tension about Jesus: Jesus was only man and not God (for example, Adoptionism, Arianism) and Jesus was only divine and not man (for example, Docetism, Apollinarianism). The view that evil is God's will is similarly chopping off our responsibility, so it is doing the same thing that the original heretics did. In my view, the biblical view is that people doing evil is NOT God's will, but what he wants to achieve requires that he give us free will (and his plan of resolving our choice to do evil is to put his spirit in our hearts).
Possibly off-topic rant: If the reason is "it was God's will, because God is sovereign and therefore everything is his will", I think that is bordering on function heresy. Christianity (and life) has all these tensions: God is one, but God is three; Jesus is a man, but Jesus is God; God is sovereign, but he gave us free will. The temptation is to resolve the tension by cutting off one of the ends of the tension. The original heretics chopped off one of the ends of the tension about Jesus: Jesus was only man and not God (for example, Adoptionism, Arianism) and Jesus was only divine and not man (for example, Docetism, Apollinarianism). The view that evil is God's will is similarly chopping off our responsibility, so it is doing the same thing that the original heretics did. In my view, the biblical view is that people doing evil is NOT God's will, but what he wants to achieve requires that he give us free will (and his plan of resolving our choice to do evil is to put his spirit in our hearts).
Some clergy are well educated, others are not. Likewise, therapists vary a lot. I’ve been fortunate to have known some priests very well who are nothing short of amazing, wise people.
Someone leaning on the “everything happens for a reason” in a counseling context is gross - I almost took a swing at someone bleating that when my wife died.
Someone leaning on the “everything happens for a reason” in a counseling context is gross - I almost took a swing at someone bleating that when my wife died.
It's hard to reconcile needing friends and romance with advice like "you should work on yourself before dating" and feeling like I'm often subjecting others to myself
Pure "woundology" may indeed make things worse. There's another book which I haven't read yet about the dangers of therapy and underestimating the people's intuition and resilience - "Bad Therapy, Why the kid's aren't growing up", but the podcast with the author seemed reasonable.
It gives lots of evidences on what you've just said.
Just simply living a life, focusing on goals and targets, making mistakes and learning from them - this works too. In my case, personally, I just couldn't ignore the problems anymore. I've also made this mistake of dwelling into wounds burning out people around me and being unavailable for them instead of trying to focus more on something good.
I think, we barely scratched the complexity of human psyche, and there lot's of moving parts in person's development. There might be a bit of dehumanization and modern over-materialistic somewhat arrogance perspective - how can I stop feeling what I feel, so I could continue my business as usual?
A few things why religion helps, out of the head:
- it's an empirical study of human psyche over thousands of years
- highlights importance of intentions behind actions
- emphasizes on connection with the world
Sounds totally reasonable?
The universal practical tip would be "just live your life, pay attention and genuinely try to make good out of it", but if being specific and speaking from personal experience and a keeping it small:
- studying violence (the last book in the list) significantly reduced anxiety, risk seeking behavior and moral rigidness (e.g. what is it: "social anxiety" or "embodied situational awareness"?)
- "woundology" and focus on trauma/pain without keeping healing as a target in mind, will, most probably, just make it worse; but studying the topic still has advantages
- try to pay attention to intuition, it seems like psyche tries to heal itself naturally or at least to draw an attention to yet not understood problem/information gifted to a person about the world/life; try to find out what is the center of what draws you onto it (or maybe scorns you off way more than you yourself would expect normally): Eugene Gendlin's Focusing is a quite good tool for that
- combine both inner and external healing - with a grain of salt, as some people I've met have better outcomes with focusing on actions/thoughts (CBT), while for me a deeper body/intuition oriented inner work seems to suit better; but it's good to try and keep both in mind
- it's ok to reach for medication when it's really bad as a temporal support on the path; don't replace everything with meds, but don't reject them completely either - it's always possible to get back on track later
- things seem to get better over time, even if it doesn't feel like that in the moment: new realizations, some knots are untying, sometimes something changes radically and sometimes for the good, and it's difficult to predict that; it's obvious since it's like a personalized empirical search - it needs practice and time, although a possibility of a downward spiral is here as well
- relationships have a degree of power to both devastate and heal
It gives lots of evidences on what you've just said.
Just simply living a life, focusing on goals and targets, making mistakes and learning from them - this works too. In my case, personally, I just couldn't ignore the problems anymore. I've also made this mistake of dwelling into wounds burning out people around me and being unavailable for them instead of trying to focus more on something good.
I think, we barely scratched the complexity of human psyche, and there lot's of moving parts in person's development. There might be a bit of dehumanization and modern over-materialistic somewhat arrogance perspective - how can I stop feeling what I feel, so I could continue my business as usual?
A few things why religion helps, out of the head:
- it's an empirical study of human psyche over thousands of years
- highlights importance of intentions behind actions
- emphasizes on connection with the world
Sounds totally reasonable?
The universal practical tip would be "just live your life, pay attention and genuinely try to make good out of it", but if being specific and speaking from personal experience and a keeping it small:
- studying violence (the last book in the list) significantly reduced anxiety, risk seeking behavior and moral rigidness (e.g. what is it: "social anxiety" or "embodied situational awareness"?)
- "woundology" and focus on trauma/pain without keeping healing as a target in mind, will, most probably, just make it worse; but studying the topic still has advantages
- try to pay attention to intuition, it seems like psyche tries to heal itself naturally or at least to draw an attention to yet not understood problem/information gifted to a person about the world/life; try to find out what is the center of what draws you onto it (or maybe scorns you off way more than you yourself would expect normally): Eugene Gendlin's Focusing is a quite good tool for that
- combine both inner and external healing - with a grain of salt, as some people I've met have better outcomes with focusing on actions/thoughts (CBT), while for me a deeper body/intuition oriented inner work seems to suit better; but it's good to try and keep both in mind
- it's ok to reach for medication when it's really bad as a temporal support on the path; don't replace everything with meds, but don't reject them completely either - it's always possible to get back on track later
- things seem to get better over time, even if it doesn't feel like that in the moment: new realizations, some knots are untying, sometimes something changes radically and sometimes for the good, and it's difficult to predict that; it's obvious since it's like a personalized empirical search - it needs practice and time, although a possibility of a downward spiral is here as well
- relationships have a degree of power to both devastate and heal
>"Bad Therapy, Why the kid's aren't growing up", but the podcast with the author seemed reasonable.
I had this book in my read queue, until I saw a podcast where she basically outted herself as an anti-vax covid denier. She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.
I had this book in my read queue, until I saw a podcast where she basically outted herself as an anti-vax covid denier. She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.
I’m not saying this to try to start a fight or anything. You strike me as a kind person, so I’m going to give this a shot.
I am a bit of a contrarian about lots of things. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known were major contrarians.
Are Linus Torvalds or RMS contrarians? What about Richard Feynman or Tesla?
I don’t really know if any of those examples would be widely considered contrarians, but my point is that people are multi faceted. Dismissing a person in a broad manner for unpopular opinions in one arena, strikes me as a religious mindset.
Does everyone have to pass a purity test before their opinions are able to be considered? Is that healthy?
Thank you for any consideration you can give this. I truly do not mean to start a flame war. One more thought experiment: is it ok to learn woodworking from an Amish person who likely would have wildly diverging views from most people?
I am a bit of a contrarian about lots of things. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known were major contrarians.
Are Linus Torvalds or RMS contrarians? What about Richard Feynman or Tesla?
I don’t really know if any of those examples would be widely considered contrarians, but my point is that people are multi faceted. Dismissing a person in a broad manner for unpopular opinions in one arena, strikes me as a religious mindset.
Does everyone have to pass a purity test before their opinions are able to be considered? Is that healthy?
Thank you for any consideration you can give this. I truly do not mean to start a flame war. One more thought experiment: is it ok to learn woodworking from an Amish person who likely would have wildly diverging views from most people?
So, I divide things into two camps. I think one can hold an unpopular opinion about subjective things, and it's fine. I won't judge you for preferring tabs over spaces, even if I think you're wrong. I won't weigh that opinion against your other work either. It's like preferring sweet potato to apple pie. You're still wrong, but again it has no bearing on objective facts. :^)
When you're outspoken about an objective fact that has been proven out by a mountain of evidence like vaccines being safe, or the earth being round, that's when I become very skeptical of any of your other opinions.
The amish woodworker is an interesting question. I wouldn't judge him for being wrong about things outside of his domain as I'd assume ignorance instead of malice, but if he started popping off very wrong theories on the nature of oak vs pine I'd probably be leery.
When you're outspoken about an objective fact that has been proven out by a mountain of evidence like vaccines being safe, or the earth being round, that's when I become very skeptical of any of your other opinions.
The amish woodworker is an interesting question. I wouldn't judge him for being wrong about things outside of his domain as I'd assume ignorance instead of malice, but if he started popping off very wrong theories on the nature of oak vs pine I'd probably be leery.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’m similar to you in this regard, but I’ve been thinking about the frailty of human knowledge lately.
We get it wrong a lot. It will be interesting to see how the vax debate and perception plays out over the next few years.
We get it wrong a lot. It will be interesting to see how the vax debate and perception plays out over the next few years.
Are you advocating for comprehensive moral purity tests -- if a person holds a particular view that you disapprove of, they ought to be canceled in general and everything they've ever said or done banned, no matter whether their other work is good on its own merits?
It seems there are very, very few people in the history of the world whose work would survive. Perhaps none.
It seems there are very, very few people in the history of the world whose work would survive. Perhaps none.
I am a layman, not a psychologist with sufficient education to prove or disprove her claims. When I judge someone's credibility, I take into account whether they've spread misinformation in the past. In this case, she has. Or at least she holds those beliefs and believes them strongly enough to speak openly about it on a public podcast.
Yes. I judge people on that. We all have the freedom of speech. We do not have freedom from the judgement of others.
Yes. I judge people on that. We all have the freedom of speech. We do not have freedom from the judgement of others.
That doesn't address the argument at all. You claimed that although her views on one topic seem reasonable, you believe they should be canceled, no longer promoted in society, buried.... because you strongly disapprove of her views on an unrelated topic.
Are you prepared to extend this practice universally? Are you aware that practically nobody can survive this sort of puritanical Maoist cancel culture? Look at what happened in China or Cambodia for recent examples of how that goes.
Are you prepared to extend this practice universally? Are you aware that practically nobody can survive this sort of puritanical Maoist cancel culture? Look at what happened in China or Cambodia for recent examples of how that goes.
I disapprove of her views because they were provably false, yet she still espouses them. Yes, I do extend this universally. I won't take advice on orbital mechanics from someone who thinks the earth is flat either.
If that's 'puritanical Maoist cancel culture' so be it. You told on yourself with that phrase. This isn't a good faith discussion, and I'm out.
If that's 'puritanical Maoist cancel culture' so be it. You told on yourself with that phrase. This isn't a good faith discussion, and I'm out.
He said:
She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.
You're the one talking about cancelling, not him. We all have the freedom to listen to who we want.
She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.
You're the one talking about cancelling, not him. We all have the freedom to listen to who we want.
If someone shows they’re either stupid or dishonest I will deprioritize reading their books. I have infinite books to read before I die. I have to cull the list somehow.
I agree that just marinating in a trauma and victim mindset isn't healthy. All you do is re-traumatize!
But that's why any therapist worth their salt will focus on engaging and healing those issues. Yes we engage with the trauma response, but in a safe space so that you can walk out of being trapped in it.
But that's why any therapist worth their salt will focus on engaging and healing those issues. Yes we engage with the trauma response, but in a safe space so that you can walk out of being trapped in it.
I think your impression has merit and labeling people as 'sick' or 'broken' or any of the diagnoses in psychology literature, that imply just about the same, can keep people stuck identifying with their afflictions. And that there's some great value in religion that we've not found a good replacement for.
I also believe that one can go without facing deeply traumatic events for an entire life and seem to many on the outside to be doing much better than one who goes the difficult path of deconstructing oneself and their family history.
And I think our unhappiness and that of our children is well explained by our late-stage-capitalist, individualistic cultures and the rise of technology that profits from (ill-)serving our social needs.
'It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' - Jiddu Krishnamurti
I also believe that one can go without facing deeply traumatic events for an entire life and seem to many on the outside to be doing much better than one who goes the difficult path of deconstructing oneself and their family history.
And I think our unhappiness and that of our children is well explained by our late-stage-capitalist, individualistic cultures and the rise of technology that profits from (ill-)serving our social needs.
'It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' - Jiddu Krishnamurti
“some great value in religion” takes a long time of filtering through stories and metaphors to find the actual point.
I get it, some lessons are hard to teach and it’s easier to present the framework of the lesson in a story, then people make connections as they grow.
But you also have to consider all of the harmful misinterpretations that come with it.
If most people come away from religion less ethical than nonreligious people, let’s see if we can take the good parts of the texts and throw the rest away.
E.g. learning about mystical buddhism versus just going to therapy and breathing for a while.
I get it, some lessons are hard to teach and it’s easier to present the framework of the lesson in a story, then people make connections as they grow.
But you also have to consider all of the harmful misinterpretations that come with it.
If most people come away from religion less ethical than nonreligious people, let’s see if we can take the good parts of the texts and throw the rest away.
E.g. learning about mystical buddhism versus just going to therapy and breathing for a while.
> If most people come away from religion less ethical than nonreligious people
How do you test that? You cannot do a double blind test because you cannot induce religion in people to order.
> let’s see if we can take the good parts of the texts and throw the rest away.
I do not think you can do that. Each religion is largely shaped by a few key ideas. Remove one of those and you change it radically (losing the good) remove anything else and you will not change anything significant.
You can reform and improve religions, but I think history shows that is not easy nor are the results predictable.
I think you over-emphasise the importance of texts to religions in general. Texts are the foundation of American evangelical Christianity and (to an extent I am worse equipped to judge) Islam, but much of Christianity and at least some schools of Buddhism are really based in a very small core of ideas.
How do you test that? You cannot do a double blind test because you cannot induce religion in people to order.
> let’s see if we can take the good parts of the texts and throw the rest away.
I do not think you can do that. Each religion is largely shaped by a few key ideas. Remove one of those and you change it radically (losing the good) remove anything else and you will not change anything significant.
You can reform and improve religions, but I think history shows that is not easy nor are the results predictable.
I think you over-emphasise the importance of texts to religions in general. Texts are the foundation of American evangelical Christianity and (to an extent I am worse equipped to judge) Islam, but much of Christianity and at least some schools of Buddhism are really based in a very small core of ideas.
I take it as a fair enough assumption for my judgements that all people have the same average personality potential at birth.
I’ve been around a lot of very Catholic people. I’d say half are well intentioned, whereas half are belligerent antivax etc.
The ones with good intentions prop up and obey the bad actors.
The ones with good intentions end up feeling trapped by the community and the religious trauma. Sometimes the good ones end up taking it out on their spouses/kids, perceived as units of the oppressive structure (though they are victims alike).
The difficulty of reform is all the more reason I’m happy for the slow decline in religiosity.
I’ve been around a lot of very Catholic people. I’d say half are well intentioned, whereas half are belligerent antivax etc.
The ones with good intentions prop up and obey the bad actors.
The ones with good intentions end up feeling trapped by the community and the religious trauma. Sometimes the good ones end up taking it out on their spouses/kids, perceived as units of the oppressive structure (though they are victims alike).
The difficulty of reform is all the more reason I’m happy for the slow decline in religiosity.
I agree with you in that the stories of religion are pretty dangerous in their 'dogmatic' potential.
I think another big value of religion is the community that comes with it. Its really easy to get along with people who tell the same stories.
And maybe there's something else I'm less aware of, idk. My point is there seems to be something we've not figured out well enough to apply it.
I think another big value of religion is the community that comes with it. Its really easy to get along with people who tell the same stories.
And maybe there's something else I'm less aware of, idk. My point is there seems to be something we've not figured out well enough to apply it.
People in prison have more 'community' and 'support' just by the fact they are surrounded by others in a communal setting than the average person out on the street in the USA. How f'd up as a society is that?
You seem to be a connoisseur of this genre of reading material. You might enjoy "Feelings Matter: Keys to the Unexplored Self" by Ceanne DeRohan.
#4 was a profound and very validating read for me understanding how the brain handles traumatic events. Thanks for sharing.
Not to deny your experience with it, however looking up the author and the book I notice that it has drawn some serious criticisms for inaccuracies and lack of empirical data backing up claims.
> lack of empirical data backing up claims
Doesn't that describe almost all books on psychology?
Psychology studies tend to be so hilariously unscientific that I'd rather get the coherent opinions and gut feelings of an experienced practicing expert, rather than half-arsed studies.
Doesn't that describe almost all books on psychology?
Psychology studies tend to be so hilariously unscientific that I'd rather get the coherent opinions and gut feelings of an experienced practicing expert, rather than half-arsed studies.
You could level some pretty damning claims against hard science as well due to the ongoing reproducibility crises in academia (LK99, the "faster than light" accidents that have been reported,the "EM Drive"), or the enormous amount of money (and people's brains) sunk into string theory. Somehow those are/were considered science even though there is no evidence.
Links?
He cites a _lot_ of empirical research and the book is generally highly regarded in the field
Do you have links yourself for those claims?
You could see the bibliography of the book itself. You could google a bit and see the guy is a leader in this field, and a pioneer of this research. Answering a request for sources of your assertion with a request for theirs isn't done in good faith.
I made no such assertion? I was following the thread and I think its a fair request. It was an easy google search to see that he was fired for bullying and creating a hostile workplace a few years back...not sure where that landed. And I saw a number of articles relating to pseudoscience that he recommends in the book. It was a simple ask for their simple ask.
I found “Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving” extremely revelatory. It was a great introduction to the concept for me.
Funnily enough, I picked up up thinking this stuff was nonsense. Then it hit me like a bag of bricks. It was very humbling.
Since then I’ve also found writing by James Hollis very useful. One which stood out for me was “Under Saturn’s Shadow: The Wounding and Healing of Men”. It’s quite insightful about how modern life can afflict men, and how men can learn, adapt, and overcome these challenges. It’s refreshingly well-rounded and takes seriously the idea that men can suffer just as women do, patriarchy or not (and even because of it), and offers tools to work towards making things right.
In general his work is a great stepping stone from understanding CPTSD to then finding more nuanced models of the internal mechanisms, how to understand and articulate them, then ultimately grow beyond them. Some may find the Jungian psychology overwhelming or off-putting (I did initially), but there is real substance there.
Funnily enough, I picked up up thinking this stuff was nonsense. Then it hit me like a bag of bricks. It was very humbling.
Since then I’ve also found writing by James Hollis very useful. One which stood out for me was “Under Saturn’s Shadow: The Wounding and Healing of Men”. It’s quite insightful about how modern life can afflict men, and how men can learn, adapt, and overcome these challenges. It’s refreshingly well-rounded and takes seriously the idea that men can suffer just as women do, patriarchy or not (and even because of it), and offers tools to work towards making things right.
In general his work is a great stepping stone from understanding CPTSD to then finding more nuanced models of the internal mechanisms, how to understand and articulate them, then ultimately grow beyond them. Some may find the Jungian psychology overwhelming or off-putting (I did initially), but there is real substance there.
Also Atlas of the Heart by Brene Brown was a breakthrough book for me
I'm a big fan of reading, but I'm not sure I'll be able to go through 7 books before my next crisis.
Surely there is another recommendation/simplification?
Surely there is another recommendation/simplification?
"Attached" by Dr. Amir Levine and Rachel Heller.
A very approachable work on the subject, exploring the four attachment types (but recognising that they are on a multi-dimensional spectrum), with real-world examples and practical strategies for coping.
A very approachable work on the subject, exploring the four attachment types (but recognising that they are on a multi-dimensional spectrum), with real-world examples and practical strategies for coping.
If I'd have to pick only one book, then it'd be the second one.
Are these talking about the neurological basis of attachment ?
Thanks for the list nonetheless.
Thanks for the list nonetheless.
Yes, except the "Focusing" practice and the last one about the violence.
Attachment is a weird thing, because it usually happens so early in life where there are no memories yet.
However, infants still internalize everything, they can feel, react to the environment and understand consequences of what their feelings tell them. "If I'm scared, then there's a high probability of something bad to be happen to me".
So, there are may not be rational memories to be linked to the problem 20-30 years later in life.
P.S.
Speaking from the personal experience - during the focusing practice I was able to verbally conceptualize these old feelings which became a part of my identity.
In the end, the crux was being an infant, a sensation of being blind, overfocused on touch and sounds, high sensation of exposedness and nakedness, sensation of mother's touch and realisation that she's unable to attune to me emotionally, like it's still a human touch, but similar to touching a stone.
Hence, the futile cry and scream to draw her attention out of fear to be protected.
To paraphraze, it felt like if now, I'd get tied (immobilized), blindfolded and left naked in the night Luisiana swamps.
It's weird, but I think, I actually understood why infants may cry and have a need to be seen and connected to. It seems to be so logical for me nowadays - they are humans too, after all.
Attachment is a weird thing, because it usually happens so early in life where there are no memories yet.
However, infants still internalize everything, they can feel, react to the environment and understand consequences of what their feelings tell them. "If I'm scared, then there's a high probability of something bad to be happen to me".
So, there are may not be rational memories to be linked to the problem 20-30 years later in life.
P.S.
Speaking from the personal experience - during the focusing practice I was able to verbally conceptualize these old feelings which became a part of my identity.
In the end, the crux was being an infant, a sensation of being blind, overfocused on touch and sounds, high sensation of exposedness and nakedness, sensation of mother's touch and realisation that she's unable to attune to me emotionally, like it's still a human touch, but similar to touching a stone.
Hence, the futile cry and scream to draw her attention out of fear to be protected.
To paraphraze, it felt like if now, I'd get tied (immobilized), blindfolded and left naked in the night Luisiana swamps.
It's weird, but I think, I actually understood why infants may cry and have a need to be seen and connected to. It seems to be so logical for me nowadays - they are humans too, after all.
> So, there are may not be rational memories to be linked to the problem 20-30 years later in life.
Yeah that was the hidden question I had, your neurology can stack up years of life until you end up in a dead end and everything breaks.
Yeah that was the hidden question I had, your neurology can stack up years of life until you end up in a dead end and everything breaks.
Scott Alexander's review of The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk : https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/12/book-review-the-body-k...
Thanks for sharing!
What no Daniel Siegel?
A relevant good book, which I recently read, is "Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class."
https://www.amazon.com/Troubled-Memoir-Foster-Family-Social/...
https://www.amazon.com/Troubled-Memoir-Foster-Family-Social/...
In the microplastics thread, so many were ready to assign blame for so many pervasive ills to the prevalence of microplastics.
Meanwhile we have known about the devastating effect of interpersonal trauma in childhood and just shrug or worse, say “well that’s how my parents did it and I’m fine.”
Foundationally there is no problem more urgent than eliminating interpersonal alienation at every possible interaction and eliminating alienating systems.
You can’t innovate your way out of the problems a society with no trust causes.
Meanwhile we have known about the devastating effect of interpersonal trauma in childhood and just shrug or worse, say “well that’s how my parents did it and I’m fine.”
Foundationally there is no problem more urgent than eliminating interpersonal alienation at every possible interaction and eliminating alienating systems.
You can’t innovate your way out of the problems a society with no trust causes.
> “well that’s how my parents did it and I’m fine.”
Broadly speaking, I've noticed a couple of different responses to going through an extended bad experience over which one has no control (for example, a shitty childhood).
Upon reaching adulthood, one response is to say, "Wow, that really sucked, I will take steps to avoid ever having to experience that again, nor visit it on my children/partner/loved ones".
Another (probably more common) response is to say, "I survived and I'm ok, it must not have been that bad. Maybe it even made me stronger/tougher/more worldly/etc".
Needless (I hope?) to say, people who tend towards the latter attitude are far more likely to repeat the same mistakes that they previously suffered from. Unfortunately this kind of attitude also seems to frequently be tightly interwoven with identity, making it all but impossible to dislodge. Thus the cycle repeats.
Broadly speaking, I've noticed a couple of different responses to going through an extended bad experience over which one has no control (for example, a shitty childhood).
Upon reaching adulthood, one response is to say, "Wow, that really sucked, I will take steps to avoid ever having to experience that again, nor visit it on my children/partner/loved ones".
Another (probably more common) response is to say, "I survived and I'm ok, it must not have been that bad. Maybe it even made me stronger/tougher/more worldly/etc".
Needless (I hope?) to say, people who tend towards the latter attitude are far more likely to repeat the same mistakes that they previously suffered from. Unfortunately this kind of attitude also seems to frequently be tightly interwoven with identity, making it all but impossible to dislodge. Thus the cycle repeats.
We often downplay the prevalence of dissociation as well - sometimes formative experiences are not necessarily even apparent. Then when they have a kid it comes flooding back, the same cycles repeat as the underlying emotional blindness is still unaided.
I love that "and I'm fine" line. I see it a lot in contexts where someone is defending something that seems barbaric to me, which I would consider a very clear sign that they are not fine.
It leads to a lot of, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," at least in my internal dialogue.
It leads to a lot of, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," at least in my internal dialogue.
An additional anecdote: I see it in responsibility rejection and/or attempted erasure:
- I'm fine, therefore you are also fine (it's not my fault you can't deal with this)
- I'm fine, therefore you are also fine (you exist only as an extension of me, and I'm fine)
- I'm fine, therefore you are also fine (it's not my fault you can't deal with this)
- I'm fine, therefore you are also fine (you exist only as an extension of me, and I'm fine)
It can also be survivorship bias: "we never used seat belts and we were fine" can only be said by someone alive.
I'm trying to be open-minded reading through this thread. I don't understand much of it at all. Everything's in English, follows grammar rules, etc. But semantically it all seems empty. I have a large vocabulary, and I haven't had to look up any of the words that aren't modern psych jargon (and few of those).
It's difficult to understand what you even mean by trauma. I understand it perfectly in a medical context, these are acute and potentially deadly injuries that must be treated immediately. In this thread? I can't make sense of it. Not 10 comments above yours, there was someone suggesting that "abuse" and "trauma" don't even correlate perfectly... which sort of seems insightful, but also confuses things even more. I could at least deal with the idea of some hidden psychiatric illness that originates from physical/sexual abuse, but if even that's the case... then what should I be taking away from this?
I can't speak for the others, but I definitely don't know what you mean. Not even slightly.
It's difficult to understand what you even mean by trauma. I understand it perfectly in a medical context, these are acute and potentially deadly injuries that must be treated immediately. In this thread? I can't make sense of it. Not 10 comments above yours, there was someone suggesting that "abuse" and "trauma" don't even correlate perfectly... which sort of seems insightful, but also confuses things even more. I could at least deal with the idea of some hidden psychiatric illness that originates from physical/sexual abuse, but if even that's the case... then what should I be taking away from this?
I can't speak for the others, but I definitely don't know what you mean. Not even slightly.
I think the way relational trauma is understood today, at least as applied to children, is that the event breaks the person's internal sense of self and of safety.
Children are SO vulnerable, and their brains understand this on a lizard level. "Those people are huge and I am very small" is obvious, even to an infant. They know, instinctively, that their parents are what stand between them and death.
When a parent abuses a child, violates a child, the child doesn't doubt the parent's goodness or rightness. They can't afford to. It's much too dangerous. If the person standing between you and death isn't safe, nothing and nowhere is safe.
So they doubt themselves, their own goodness, their own rightness. The operating system gets installed with major bugs. It can't trust its own programs, its own judgment, whether it's even real and has a right to keep existing. It's broken on such a deep level that it can't recover on its own.
I think sometimes abuse doesn't lead to trauma if there are strong enough mitigating factors. She's now deceased (death totally unrelated to this) so I can't ask her, but I don't think my sister experienced our abuse as trauma like I did, because she internalized very early on that dad was unreliable and unsafe, so it didn't shake her sense of self and her own judgment. I have theories about why she was able to do that and I wasn't, but there's only so much to be gained by speculating in her absence.
I made my parent comment intentionally vague because I didn't want to cause debate about it, but the context where I normally hear people saying, "My parents did it to me and I turned out fine," is talking about spanking their children. So my response is, essentially, "Are you fine? You're standing here defending the idea of hitting a child. To me that's a very strong indicator of not being fine." I thought it was a common enough conversation for people to know what I meant without spelling it out and opening that can of worms, but that's probably culturally contextual.
Hope this at least clears things up a bit.
Children are SO vulnerable, and their brains understand this on a lizard level. "Those people are huge and I am very small" is obvious, even to an infant. They know, instinctively, that their parents are what stand between them and death.
When a parent abuses a child, violates a child, the child doesn't doubt the parent's goodness or rightness. They can't afford to. It's much too dangerous. If the person standing between you and death isn't safe, nothing and nowhere is safe.
So they doubt themselves, their own goodness, their own rightness. The operating system gets installed with major bugs. It can't trust its own programs, its own judgment, whether it's even real and has a right to keep existing. It's broken on such a deep level that it can't recover on its own.
I think sometimes abuse doesn't lead to trauma if there are strong enough mitigating factors. She's now deceased (death totally unrelated to this) so I can't ask her, but I don't think my sister experienced our abuse as trauma like I did, because she internalized very early on that dad was unreliable and unsafe, so it didn't shake her sense of self and her own judgment. I have theories about why she was able to do that and I wasn't, but there's only so much to be gained by speculating in her absence.
I made my parent comment intentionally vague because I didn't want to cause debate about it, but the context where I normally hear people saying, "My parents did it to me and I turned out fine," is talking about spanking their children. So my response is, essentially, "Are you fine? You're standing here defending the idea of hitting a child. To me that's a very strong indicator of not being fine." I thought it was a common enough conversation for people to know what I meant without spelling it out and opening that can of worms, but that's probably culturally contextual.
Hope this at least clears things up a bit.
Very well said
It’s finally recognizing that the centuries of generational interpersonal trauma that was normalized has been catastrophic for the world
You have to recognize the problem before you can solve it
It’s finally recognizing that the centuries of generational interpersonal trauma that was normalized has been catastrophic for the world
You have to recognize the problem before you can solve it
Would we even have an "I'm going to get mine no matter what happens to anyone or anything else, now or in the future," mindset if we all grew up with healthy attachments?
I know scarcity would still exist. It's not like better parenting would make things perfect. But I hope all the internal healing work people are trying to do is part of the necessary process to turn the tide on this as a systemic problem.
I know scarcity would still exist. It's not like better parenting would make things perfect. But I hope all the internal healing work people are trying to do is part of the necessary process to turn the tide on this as a systemic problem.
You're in a tangled philosophical thornbed with that internal dialog. It isn't a strange thing to think but as far as I can see functional humans are all barbaric. In the small scale, the practice of eating meat leaps to mind. I love a good chicken burger but let us be real about what it takes to produce one. Not pretty.
So we might have an existence problem if we go to find someone who doesn't defend barbaric practices and describe themselves as "fine". Everyone defends some barbaric practices, and some subset of them will be fine.
So we might have an existence problem if we go to find someone who doesn't defend barbaric practices and describe themselves as "fine". Everyone defends some barbaric practices, and some subset of them will be fine.
I'm vegan, and I would be quite functional if the rest of the world was simply right instead of wrong
I think you're being a bit unfair with "I'm fine".
Rumination is a real thing and for a lot of people they don't find it useful, or in fact actively harmful, to draw attention to the fact repeatedly.
Rumination is a real thing and for a lot of people they don't find it useful, or in fact actively harmful, to draw attention to the fact repeatedly.
And the goal of therapy and other treatments is to in fact be fine. Also a common result of child sexual abuse is to feel uniquely specially damaged in a way no one could understand. Cut off from humanity, while in fact the experience is one some percentage of people share and while it's bad it's not something that renders your life hopelessly bad. Letting go of that feeling of specialness is hard but very beneficial. In some families the abuser is the only person to be warm or kind to the victim. Their only experience of comforting touch, which is needed, becomes a weirdly special secret.
Yes, dealing with past trauma is exceptionally difficult and it takes an exceptional amount of work to deal with
Much like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, etc…
You must overcome your fears to liberate yourself from your own anxieties
Much like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, etc…
You must overcome your fears to liberate yourself from your own anxieties
I’m sorry to read about so much pain experienced by so many.
Do the people doing the traumatising typically know they are doing it? Do they typically deny it if confronted?
Do the people doing the traumatising typically know they are doing it? Do they typically deny it if confronted?
Speaking for my own abuser, he is the only subject in his entire world. The rest of the universe is full of objects only. He has demonstrated (to clinicians, not just to me) that he has no ability whatsoever to realize that other people are capable of feeling different things than he does, so if something makes him feel good, it makes even the little child he's doing it to feel good too.
He has said on a number of occasions that he (still, in his late 60s) struggles to believe things continue to exist when he can't see them. Even if you're sitting across a table from him and can clearly see behind him, he doesn't believe the things behind him continue to exist, even though you can see them.
I suspect he's on a pretty extreme end of a spectrum there, but that some version of that underlies a lot of trauma. Adults are doing something to meet some need or desire they have, without enough awareness that the (usually young) person in front of them is experiencing it totally differently.
He has said on a number of occasions that he (still, in his late 60s) struggles to believe things continue to exist when he can't see them. Even if you're sitting across a table from him and can clearly see behind him, he doesn't believe the things behind him continue to exist, even though you can see them.
I suspect he's on a pretty extreme end of a spectrum there, but that some version of that underlies a lot of trauma. Adults are doing something to meet some need or desire they have, without enough awareness that the (usually young) person in front of them is experiencing it totally differently.
> I suspect he's on a pretty extreme end of a spectrum there, but that some version of that underlies a lot of trauma.
I'm inclined to agree; one can attach labels to this person of "psychopath", "narcissist", etc, but in a lot of people with that label there isn't a physical problem that they were born with, but events in their lives (often early childhood as per the article) that changed something in their brains for the worst. I don't think they were a lost cause, but they would have needed intensive therapy to try and unfuck some of what they've gone through, and it would only have worked when they were much younger (neuroplasticity etc).
Disclaimer: armchair opinion, I'm not a professional or expert.
I'm inclined to agree; one can attach labels to this person of "psychopath", "narcissist", etc, but in a lot of people with that label there isn't a physical problem that they were born with, but events in their lives (often early childhood as per the article) that changed something in their brains for the worst. I don't think they were a lost cause, but they would have needed intensive therapy to try and unfuck some of what they've gone through, and it would only have worked when they were much younger (neuroplasticity etc).
Disclaimer: armchair opinion, I'm not a professional or expert.
I'll even acknowledge his dad was worse than he is, and my great-grandfather worse still. But all those generations until my brother died defending the belief that they were fine and everyone else was the problem.
I think change is possible for anyone, but they have to want it (and the more change that's needed, the bigger the desire has to be). And I've realized there isn't anything I can do to make my dad want to change.
I think change is possible for anyone, but they have to want it (and the more change that's needed, the bigger the desire has to be). And I've realized there isn't anything I can do to make my dad want to change.
> But all those generations until my brother died defending the belief that they were fine and everyone else was the problem.
That's also what I observed but it's almost tautological, isn't it? If they were able/willing to realize it, they'd feel the need to change it, unless we're talking about severe psychopaths.
> I think change is possible for anyone, but they have to want it (and the more change that's needed, the bigger the desire has to be). And I've realized there isn't anything I can do to make my dad want to change.
I think it's possible most times, and that no one should try. The victim is usually better-placed to do it and they don't deserve to waste part of their life for someone who causes them problems on purpose.
It may be a job for the mental health system, or for school in the long run, but that's a long shot. Or maybe we should focus on giving victims an escape. I'm not sure there's a good solution if we want to give all parents freedom.
That's also what I observed but it's almost tautological, isn't it? If they were able/willing to realize it, they'd feel the need to change it, unless we're talking about severe psychopaths.
> I think change is possible for anyone, but they have to want it (and the more change that's needed, the bigger the desire has to be). And I've realized there isn't anything I can do to make my dad want to change.
I think it's possible most times, and that no one should try. The victim is usually better-placed to do it and they don't deserve to waste part of their life for someone who causes them problems on purpose.
It may be a job for the mental health system, or for school in the long run, but that's a long shot. Or maybe we should focus on giving victims an escape. I'm not sure there's a good solution if we want to give all parents freedom.
I told my dad point blank he was physically and emotionally abusive and he denied it lol.
The things I have lived. I have seen a person turn to robot then to a person again multiple times. If they came close to someone they freaked and turned to stereotypical actions and wording, and then when emotionally sober they would try to pick up the pieces of the self sabotage.
I studied heavily for two years, they gave me their attention. I read reddit and relationship columns and I recognize the keywords. "Independence", "We must", "Disappeared, ghosted"
See these two videos:
Ignore the username https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b_H0V1-kQbE
Heidi Priebe all vids but specifically this it is titled fearful avoidance but it is for everything https://youtu.be/5jk7PAa8D1o?feature=shared
user igorramazanov gave a great list. If one has trauma such as consistent nightmares avoid reading the "Body keeps the score", it is about cptsd and it is too strong and triggering leave for later. cptsd is relevant to attachment problems but not directly. let me also add another tangentially relevant but very good book about borderline personality disorder "I hate you, don't leave me'
After someone has realized that not knowing why he dislikes all his partners for no reason after while is due to trauma healing can start. It takes 3-5 years of therapy and a secure partner through that journey.
I studied heavily for two years, they gave me their attention. I read reddit and relationship columns and I recognize the keywords. "Independence", "We must", "Disappeared, ghosted"
See these two videos:
Ignore the username https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b_H0V1-kQbE
Heidi Priebe all vids but specifically this it is titled fearful avoidance but it is for everything https://youtu.be/5jk7PAa8D1o?feature=shared
user igorramazanov gave a great list. If one has trauma such as consistent nightmares avoid reading the "Body keeps the score", it is about cptsd and it is too strong and triggering leave for later. cptsd is relevant to attachment problems but not directly. let me also add another tangentially relevant but very good book about borderline personality disorder "I hate you, don't leave me'
After someone has realized that not knowing why he dislikes all his partners for no reason after while is due to trauma healing can start. It takes 3-5 years of therapy and a secure partner through that journey.
[deleted]
surprised not to have found any reference to structural dissociation theory here
https://janinafisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/structur...
https://a.co/d/7UOPYoR
https://janinafisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/structur...
https://a.co/d/7UOPYoR
As someone who has had early trauma it never leaves.
The worst part is knowing no one will ever understand what it feels like to have no right answers.
The worst part is knowing no one will ever understand what it feels like to have no right answers.
It’s a larger club than you might imagine, and even to the deepest depths of nigh-unimaginable mistreatment there are people who have worked through it.
The sad part is the best way to deal with it is pretend it never happened.
Feel so defeatist but that'd the reality of being a man.
Feel so defeatist but that'd the reality of being a man.
That is a useful coping strategy for a child but if you can get away from the abusive family or whatever group, as an adult you absolutely can be free to deal with the effects until you know yourself as a free, powerful, and normal human being, with a life you are contented by.
The concept of normal is a childish notion, having to do with a lack of appreciation for the complexity of others
The experience of abuse, especially directed at oneself rather than towards everyone, can lead to an idea that one is uniquely, shamefully bad, cut off from others, abnormal in an essential way, as opposed to the idea of everyone is in the same boat, we share a common humanity etc. Normal in the latter sense is what I meant - in opposition to being on the other side of a glass from which one can observe humanity without feeling connected to it. Probably a sort of dissociative symptom.
It’s both - you have to go on living an aspect of your life as if it didn’t for a while in order to survive, and then when you have reached a safer point it becomes time to start unpacking it. Burdens are sometimes carried without us knowing it.
I have a hard time not ruminating, but for some people it seems unavoidable
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33413909-the-deepest-wel...